we are against these sites in their entirety, and I would like to question some of those responses, and in particular, as to why the council haven't seen fit to provide a presentation for Warwick Gates? We do not live at Chase Meadow, as suggested, and this is not a suburb of Bishops Tachbrook.

The case you so eloquently make would suggest we should have a presentation?

I personally, and please don't take offence, do not understand why a senior council planner, who doesn't come from this area, presides over answering objections to a LOCAL plan? I will be contacting my local councillor, if only to ask that.

It is good to know that these sites will be owned by those residing there. They may just look after them better than the areas they camp on illegally.

The Council website, which you refer to, for preferred option 15 for gypsies and travellers suggested that these travellers could have access to future locally sited schools, a little presumptuous don't you think? Any build in this area is not, to my knowledge, a done deal, is it? So how safe is the information on this site? Given the current "LOCAL PLAN" situation, I feel a little more sensitivity, when responding to general local concerns, would go a long way (thanks for pointing out my numbering mistake in my first correspondence).

I believe you were correct, I don't think you should have responded to item 6. The fact that you are not from this area gives you no forum to air your views over our local concerns but I will take your, unsupported, comments on board.

I will be contacting my council representative to place my objections but funnily enough that is what I thought this process was for?

We have studied the various proposals and we have listed our preferences in no specific order since it is clear that many other factors will have to be taken into account before a final decision is reached. However we disagree strongly that children of these people should be given priority over local children even if they come in from surrounding areas. To give this priority is tantamount to giving permission for long stay - or permanent stays - which we understand is not what these sites are for. I assume that users of these sites will pay an economic rent for their use and will not simply be a ' drain ' on the county's already stretched resources.
GT alt 01. GT 08. GT alt 03. GT 15. GT 17.

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

Land already owned by the council

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

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

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

This is a small site and will only provide 5 pitches - set on side of very busy 50mph road - NOISE - difficult and expensive to achieve safe access - totally remote from services, facilities and any community. Whilst screened by sparse trees it is still visible on a main approach to Warwick/Leam

This site is currently woodland. Changing the use of this land would require removal of many trees which would be harmful to the environment and landscape.

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

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

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comments and some of my concerns are as follows:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road is too busy to be safe - site is too small to be economically deployed - no immediate services and no pedestrian access. NOT A GOOD SITE!

This site is available as it is already owned by Warwickshire County Council. It is not green belt or agricultural land.The visual impact would be low as there is some screening and the land slopes away from the road.There is reasonable access onto Europa Way but this could be dangerous. The site will have access to employment, education and health services as it is close to the urban area and the new developments allocated in the Draft Local Plan.

Two reports are attached (1) a detailed Site Assessment Report and (2) An Ecology Report. These reports were commissioned by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council and identify why the site is unsuitable for the purposes of Gypsy and Traveller occupation

I object to this site for the following reasons:
Europa Way is a busy road and access to this site would be dangerous, it is a site with a steep slope and is heavily wooded with no facilities.

Unsuitable - access will be poor, dangerous and expensive - this site is economically non-viable...

This site is not Green Belt, and is already owned by the Council so Compulsory Purchase is not necessary. It is well screened so there should be no adverse visual impact, and it provides access to facilities and services through its proximity to the local urban area. It is close to the primary road network, though providing access to the site will need to be carefully done. Rated as "deliverable" by WDC.

This site is located on steep sloping ground that is isolated from other communities, with access from the busiest trunk road in the area. It is poorly situated, even with the proposed new housing developments on the other side of the Tachbrook Valley.

Not green belt, reasonable size plot that fits most of the above criteria.

Concerns relating to
* Impact on Tach Brook and water quality
* Cost of construction of electricity supply
* Impact on local wildlife habitats
* Safety implications of additional traffic
* Noise from Europa Way
* Limited capacity of local schools - sustainable travel access to schools and other services is low
* GP surgery, school and public transport capacity and access
* Safety issues relating to access and increase in vehicular traffic along Eurpoa Way
* Integration into landscape without harming character of area.
* Difficulties integrating into two distinct sections of local community
* Sustainable travel gains from living and working in one place negated by visiting traffic to site.
* Impact on local businesses
* Infrastructure

In support. Closer to town for services.

This site meets a good number of the criteria, in particular access and appears to be deliverable without risking the investment of public fund investment on sites which are not deliverable in a timely period.

Gtalt01
I make the following comments on this site.
* It has previously been granted planning permission as a touring caravan site which is a similar use in many respects to the proposed use as a gypsy and traveller site for permanent residence, and therefore with careful adaption it can conceivably be suitable for the proposed purpose.
* Re-engineering of the highway has been completed already allowing the site to be established quickly to help deal with the need identified.
* With appropriate screening this site can be established without causing a high visual impact. This is particularly important when considering the historic setting of Warwick Castle and also that this route into historic Warwick is not compromised.
* There is access on foot into Warwick which offers a range of services and amenities, adding to the site's sustainability, however the footpath would need to be improved to provide pushchair and wheel chair access.

GT15
I object to this site being considered as a gypsy and traveller site, for the following reasons:
* Whilst sight lines appear adequate, constructing as safe access for large articulated vehicles onto the very busy Europa Way will be expensive.
* It is proposed that Europa Way will be widened into a dual carriageway. This is likely to reduce the usable area of the proposed site.
* The establishment of vehicular access and hard-standings for park homes and the storage of touring caravans with require the removal of significant amounts of the existing vegetation. This will open up views into the site from both the historic footpath from Bishop's Tachbrook to Warwick and also from the proposed Country Park, south of Harbury Lane. This will create negative visual impacts across the rural landscape of the Tachbrook Valley.
* There will be an unknown impact on the ecology of the Tachbrook which is an important wildlife corridor linking with the Avon.

Alternative Options

GT05
I believe this site should be removed from any further consideration as a site for development as a permanent gypsy and traveller site, for the following reasons.
* A safe access cannot be constructed from the Banbury Road onto the site. This is a fast road with adequate site lines and is has a poor record for accidents.
* There is not adequate access on foot to village amenities.
* The owner is known to be unwilling to sell and I do not support compulsory purchase in these circumstances, for the reasons given below.
* This site has high landscape value according the resent WCC Landscape Ecology and Geology report completed on behalf of the District Council in support of the New Local Plan process and therefore it would be wrong for this to be developed
* The site is highly visible from a long section of Banbury Road and also Mallory Road
* There are potential negative impacts on the listed Tachbrook Hill Farm House and also Greys Mallory house.


GT06
I also believe this site should be removed from any further consideration as a gypsy and traveller site.
* It is rated as amber and therefore has a number of unresolved issues associated with it.
* Both the owner of the proposed site, and the owner of the adjacent site that could provide access are known to be unwilling to sell. Therefore compulsory purchase would be required which I object to in principle for the reasons given below but also because CPO would be a long and lengthy route to acquisition of the site, delaying significantly the delivery of the pitches required.
* The proposed site has a very open aspect and therefore would create a visual impact on the route into historic Warwick
* There is no suitable access onto the site. The creation of the access will exacerbate visual impact and require the removal of a significant length of hedgerows damaging the natural habitat for animals and plants.
* There is no access on foot to key services and amenities. The nearest bus stop is 1/2 mile away but there is not footpath meaning residents would have to walk to the bus stop along a busy road. Therefore this site is not sustainable.
Compulsory Purchase
I object to the use of a CPO to acquire any site against the owner's wishes, for the following reasons:
* The CPO process is long and protracted. This will lead to a long delay in making the necessary pitches available.
* It seems to me that it is immoral, oppressive and draconian that a private owner of a piece of land can be forced to sell that land to the district council so that it can then be sold onto a landlord for commercial gain. CPO should be reserved only for infrastructure projects that are critical for a region or sub region.
Proposed Operating Model
* Any site that is delivered for permanent use by gypsy and travellers should either be operated by the district council or a specialist housing association. The district's intension sell sites onto private landlords for their operation is a high risk strategy and is not acceptable, because the resolution of any poor practices or planning breaches would be long and protracted and would lead to tension arising will the local settled community and this would undermine the district's objectives.

I am responding to the consultation on gypsy and traveller sites. My response is focused on the sites nearest to where I live (Bishops Tachbrook) as I can respond more knowledgeably on these.

GT05 Tachbrook Hill Farm (alternative site) - This location is entirely unsuitable for development as it will ruin the ruin the rural environment that, once lost, cannot be regained. The land is good agricultural land and therefore should be used for such purposes, with less good farming land used for development where appropriate. The access to this site is too close to a junction that is already problematic in terms of accidents, which will only be aggravated.

GT15 Europa Way (preferred site) - This site would result in dangerous access to Europa Way and it is less well suited to offering proper facilities/amenities.

GTalt01 Brookside Willows (preferred site) - This site appears to be reasonably well suited to the proposed development as it has already been approved for a caravan site and is closer to towns which are better placed to absorb the demand on amenities. The infrastructure is already in place which makes this a sensible option.

GT06 Park Farm/Spinney Farm (alternative site) - This site is too close to an important local tourist attraction, Warwick Castle, and is unsuitable as it may detract from the appeal of this historical site. It would also ruin the rural environment in this area.

I hope you will take these comments into consideration.

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

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road (WDC Alternative Site)

* Close to M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues.
* Already difficulty to exit village on A52
* Flooding issues on Mallory Road
* Proximity to Village Incompatible with wanting to live apart from settled community.
* Small village facilities-part time surgery, single form entry primary school
* Visual impact on area
* Can school facilitate the children and any special needs alongside the new housing development
* Field floods
* Noise generated from site
* Main road into village already dangerous
* In 1992 all BT residents were compensated for noise pollution due to siting of M40. GT05 is closer to M40 than BT village. By the precedent set for compensation this makes the site unsuitable for Caravans due to noise. A452 is a main arterial route to M40(s) and to Gaydon Site from Leamington /Warwick making this an extremely busy road especially during morning and evening rush hour.
* Totally unsuitable. Good agricultural land. Will have developmental impact on the approach to the village.
* Exit onto the lane and or main road will be dangerous. Too close proximity to houses.
* Photographic evidence supplied of flooding
* Too much of a vast open space
* Compulsory purchase is unfair in order for the G&T community to operate the site as a business.
* Busy main road surrounding the site.
* No mains set up
* No footpath to school/ docs etc.
* Not suitable for business use.
* Busy junction
* School and Local GP surgery already oversubscribed
* Visual Impact
* Objection - Dangerous Junction
* Not a great entrance to the village
* Only 10 minute walk from Oakley Wood (via wide verge) and opposite guide dogs breeding centre, so not a good idea
* Accident blackspot
* Water logged running across the road
* Visual impact on entering village.
* Compulsory purchase would be required
* Cost to taxpayer
* Objection - subject to flooding
* Objections - adjacent to very busy Banbury road
* Adjacent to a very bad junction - many previous accidents

* North west corner subject to flooding
* Not a level site
* Very bad impact in visual amenity when travelling south on the Banbury road
* Objection - Hill Farm - Loss of visual impact on open county landscape
* Objection - site not suitable for business use.
* Objection - very close to extremely busy road and dangerous junction
* Most unsuitable site - Busy road junction
* Unpleasant vista entering the village
* Too close to village if site used as a business use site, noise would be a problem
* Doctors surgery only part time
* Can only be obtained by compulsory purchase
* Objection - risk of flooding
* Road access onto 2 busy roads which are already and accident blackspot
* Impact on environment-visual impact etc.
* A452 is a death trap. Pulling out of turning onto. There have been many fatalities at that junction and near it
* Dangerous turning into Village
* Visually damaging to our beautiful village
* Road to busy (Banbury Road)
* No footpaths, no bus route
* Reputation damage to our primary school
* As drivers drive towards the motorway on the A452 towards going onto junction 13, they increase their speed before going onto the slip road
* The access from the farmers drive there is a blind spot at the brow of the hill so very dangerous for pulling out of and turning into
* Visual impact for village would be horrendous
* Strongly object - makes an already junction more dangerous
* Adverse visual impact
* Not suitable for business use
* Prone to flooding
* Local school already over-subscribed and not footpath to village
* Compulsory purchase necessary
* Disturbance to guide dog breeding centre Oakley wood road and crematorium
* Land owner very reluctant to sell land - compulsory purchase would be a protracted process
* Strongly object because of impact on village approach
* Size out of proportion with village area
* Very dangerous road junction
* Impact on BT facilities - school surgery shop
* Flooding frequently
* Disastrous effect on rural landscape
* Need to compulsorily purchase Tachbrook (Hill Farm)
* Accidents and fatalities at this junction
* Too close to very busy roads
* accident prone junction

* site susceptible to flooding
* compulsory purchase required
* adverse visual impact on open countryside
* high negative impact on immediate area -oakley wood is protected
* concerned about impact on Guide Dog Breeding centre chose for is safe location for breeding and quietness
* compulsory purchase would be required
* flooding from field running through gardens onto the road
* flooding field and running across the road
* objection - visual impact on entering the village
* should be left for farming
* already hazardous junction - accident waiting to happen
* eyesore for the village entrance
* liable for flooding
* accident blackspot
* local school is cannot accept more children especially with special needs
* Oppose - impact on countryside
* Mallory road like a racetrack now -more would be out of order
* Business use would destroy visual amenity
* Site not suitable for business use
* Does not have any connection to services to provide sustainability (sewage/ water etc)

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm (WDC Alternative Site)
* Would harm the rural buffer zone and destroy the visual amenity on the approach to Warwick
* Severely restricts access for the owner of park farm to his remaining land
* Proximity to major roads A452 and A425 with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues
* Visual impact on entrance to historic Warwick
* Already been used for construction company for road alterations
* ?compulsory purchase expensive
* Visual impact on countryside
* Compulsory purchase necessary and would be resisted (probably)
* Adverse effect on viability of the farm business
* Adverse visual impact on the countryside
* Owner not willing to sell - expense of compulsory purchase
* Objections - access to busy road
* A good alternative - better than village
* Which school would the children attend? BT would it cope alongside new housing development
* Is this site set for facilities needed by Gypsies and Travellers
* Adjacent to very bust roads
* With Barwood application for the Asps, includes schools etc, surely this site (and Brookside) would have less impact on village and amenities.
* As an alternative, better than GT05
* Easy access to Leamington
* Road access onto A425
* Close to other proposed site GT01
* Access to schools in Warwick Leamington
* My second preference but access onto busy road
* Impact on rural landscape and approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction
* Compulsory purchase required
* No Bus route
* No access to facilities
* Park Farm ought to be "preferred" and Europa way, "alternative" (x2)

GT15 Land to east of Europa Way (WDC Preferred Site)
* Access onto Europa Way would be dangerous
* BT would have to serve the community but capacity at school is questionable
* Doctors surgery is aleady under pressure
* No bus route into Bishops Tachbrook Warwick or Leamington
* GT15 is opposite busy trunk feeder
* BT school and Surgery are already under pressure.
* Minimal visual impact
* Not suitable. Floods regularly
* Access onto and off v fast road
* Heavily wooded - no facilities
* Steep sloping ground
* Road access would need improving
* Second preferred site over GTalt01
* Minimal visual impact - well screened
* Access would appear to cause problems
* No compulsory purchase required
* Busy road
* Only small site and therefore more sites needed (no doubt in Tachbrook)
* No pavements
* On motorway feeder
* Not on bus route
* On busy road accompanying road noise and pollution and access issues
* Concerns over flooding and water contamination
* Small manageable site
* Closer to urban area for employment services education and health
* Would require clearing woodland
* After Brookside Willows, the most suitable site
* Screen from road
* Close to Leamington for doctors etc
* Land owned by Council
* Busy road access already an accident hazard site.
* Trees would have to be felled increasing flooding

* No pavements on Europa Way or access to public transport on foot hence the nearest facilities are not accessible.
* Very busy main road access
* Land floods
* No pavements/ public transport
* Obviously some trees will have to be felled therefore not so well screened
* Well screened. Minimal visual impact
* Busy road
* No site set up.
* The crazy option!! Road access and fast main Europa Way would need traffic calming measures
* Already owned by the council
* Already owned by the council
* Reasonable screening and access
* Low visual impact
* Already owned by Council

GTalt01 Brookside Willows, Banbury Road (WDC Preferred Site)
* Ideal location well screened
* Site already part prepared
* Good road access
* Needs a safe pedestrian footpath into Warwick
* No immediate neighbours
* Infrastructure already in place
* Well away from main road
* Screened
* Preferred site
* Good access to site already there
* Easy access to Warwick Town by Public transport/ on foot
* Less traffic that other main roads locally
* Reused ground - no flooding
* Good site
* Planning for Caravan Site anyway: minimal difference
* Facilities already in existence
* Road access, screening etc. in place
* No compulsory purchase necessary
* Minimum development needed for occupation
* Already partially developed
* Able to be well screened to minimise visual impact
* Preferred - ( least worst)
* Set back off road
* Cars have to slow because of T/ light approach - safer option
* Planning permission approved for a caravan park
* More suitable that some of the alternatives
* Well set back from the road
* Was originally well screened - trees can be replanted.
* Problem entering Warwick over bridge
* Very Close to Warwick parkland - will there be plans put in use regarding access from this site to the park?
* When this site was being used for Landfill, vehicles turning right into it presented considerable danger to other vehicles travelling towards Warwick. Road is even busier now of course. The reality is that drivers do not take care as the go around the bend in the road and being on down slope braking distances are increased.
* Concerns over proximity to water what is the direction of flow?
* Need to overcome contamination issues
* Visual impact entering historic Warwick
* Already designated as a site for caravans
* Well screened from road with trees
* Meets 1/2 the number of pitches required
* Preferred site: already on main road
* Set away from people already homed
* No major impact on surrounding area
* This makes sense: far away from main road not to be seen and already Planned as a caravan park.
* Preferred site as long a screening is maintained
* Basic work already completed
* Reasonable road access
* Access to Warwick Castle Park would need to be controlled
* This is the least worst options
* Access and facilities already there.
* Preferred option:-site partially developed. Has independent access. No major impact on surroundings
* Already partly developed
* Discreet
* Will not devalue the surrounding area
* Well screen
* Has specific road access
* Already partially developed
* Preferable However!! If site on Harbury Lane is passed, then there will be 2 sites affecting/ impacting Warwick Gates
* Preferred: Facilities already in place. Road access is in place and screening
* Most suitable site
* Best access ( and safest)
* Quiet location and screen from road.
* Good access and screening
* Already partly developed
* Established infrastructure screened and well shielded and safe
* No 1` preferred
* Preferred site. Infrastructure already exists
* Good road junction

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.....

As a resident of Bishops Tachbrook we have kept a close eye on the proposals for gypsy and traveller sites in the area, particularly those within the parish boundaries.

The two 'preferred' sites appear to be the most suitable for the following reasons:

GTalt01, Brookside Willows, Banbury Road.
* has planning for a caravan site (therefore utilising a site for the original purpose)
* is screened from the main road and will therefore afford some privacy from those staying there
* has easy access to Warwick (including doctors, dentist, schools, shops etc - all of which are walking distance along existing pathways)
* already has a great deal of the infrastructure required in place (including excellent access from the main road)

GT15, Land at Europa Way.
* Council owned land (no cost of purchase)
* Utilising land which is currently unused and of no agricultural value.
* Close to Warwick and its facilities (including doctors, dentist, schools, shops etc)
* Small manageable site
* Has natural screening from road

The 'alternative' sites are not very practical or desirable for the following reasons:

GT05, Tachbrook Hill Farm, Mallory Road.
* Adjacent to very bad junction (already very difficult to turn onto the A452 at peak times)
* Next to a bad section of road (several accidents have occurred there)
* Would require building on good agricultural land
* Would stretch village amenities (shop, school, doctors etc)
* Limited amenities in Bishops Tachbrook
* No existing pathways to closest amenities
* Would be potentially built next to a proposed housing development
* Land would have to be purchased - information to date suggests that the land owner does not want to sell and would therefore require costly 'compulsory purchase'
* Limited natural screening from either roads or existing housing
* Land has tendency to flood close to Mallory Road

GT06, Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm.
* Would require building on good agricultural land
* Limited/no natural screening from either roads or existing housing
* No existing pathways to closest amenities (Warwick)

To conclude, the current 'preferred' sites within the Bishops Tachbrook parish boundaries would be far more viable than those identified as 'alternative'.

A practical approach must be taken when deciding on the intended sites to minimise the impact of any development on the environment, agricultural land, existing communities, local infrastructure etc whilst providing viable sites for travellers and gypsy's.

I wish to oppose this proposed site for the following reasons:- Would harm the rural buffer zone and destroy the visual amenity on the approach to Warwick The partial development of the farm would seriously effect the viability of the farm as a business entity Adverse effect on the rural landscape and the approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction The site is close to the m40 and A452 and this proposed development will add to the existing noise pollution and access issues

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
The nature of my representation is an Objection.

I am writing to object to a gypsy site at Tachbrook Hill Farm. This is an alternative site at the moment, but I am concerned that it might become a preferred site in the future.
This site is bordered on two sides by main roads. One is a main entrance to Bishop's Tachbrook village and the other is the main road from the M40 to Leamington Spa and Warwick. Since I can see sheep and lambs in the field at the moment, there is obviously insufficient vegetation to screen a gypsy site from these roads. I have never seen a tidy gypsy encampment and a site here would seriously blight the approach to the village and the two towns.
The Banbury Road (A452) is a very busy road and at times it is extremely difficult to exit from the junction. An additional access to the road would further exacerbate the problem. This is already an accident black spot.
Although this site is classed as low risk Flood Zone 1, I have seen a section of the field under water. The ditches at the edges of the field are frequently full of water and flood over onto the road.
This site is very near residential properties.

GT15
The nature of my representation is an Objection
If the vegetation is removed there will be insufficient screening to hide this site from the main road joining the M40 to Leamington Spa. I have never seen a tidy gypsy encampment and this would be an eyesore on the approach to Leamington Spa.
For residents to reach a bus service they would have to walk along Europa Way. This is an extremely busy road and any pedestrians on it would be a danger to themselves and to the traffic.

GT15 Land at Europa Way - a preferred site:
Access for vehicles towing trailers and caravans from Europa Way onto the site, and vice versa, would be very dangerous on such a busy road. In fact any vehicle wanting to turn off Europa Way between the roundabouts would be dangerous. In addition, turning traffic would cause traffic hold-ups, which the recent 'improvements' have attempted to address.
The land floods during wet weather by the Tach brook. There could be a problem of pollution from the activities of the Gipsy and Traveller communities. There are no mains supplies of water and power to this site.

GTalt01 Brookside Willows, Banbury Way - preferred site:
Of all the proposed sites this seems to be the most appropriate as it is already prepared for a caravan site and is well-screened from the road, so should not impinge on the view as people travel into, and out of, Warwick. It is close to major road networks and when all the proposed housing developments are taken into account the site occupants would have access to education and health care.

GT05 Tachbrook Hill Farm, Mallory Road - Alternative site:
The position of this site would be in a very dangerous place. Access onto Banbury Road from Mallory Road is already dangerous, there have been several accidents, some of them fatal at this junction. The fields both north and south of the junction flood over Mallory Road in heavy or sustained rain.
Towing vehicles turning into, and off, the site near the junction of an already busy Mallory Road would be extremely dangerous. Traffic queues back from this junction at peak hours and it can take a considerable time to turn out of Mallory Road now, without any extra vehicles. Bishop's Tachbrook school is always oversubscribed and the sporadic arrival of G & T children would cause difficulties with statutory class sizes. The impact of such a site on the approach in to the village of Bishop's Tachbrook would be unacceptable and it would also be highly visible from Banbury Road. The site would have problems with noise both from Banbury Road and the M40 a few hundred meters away, and the noise created by the site would impact on Bishop's Tachbrook residents.

OBJECTION to the Gypsy and Travellers site GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Bishops Tachbrook

We are objecting to the above site on these grounds:

There are no footpaths to walk into the village. The road is a 50mph.

The Banbury Road is very fast road (50mph) with many accidents on the road and trying to turn from Mallory Road onto the Banbury Road in rush hours (AM and PM) is a nightmare. There would also be lots of noise from the Banbury Road and the M40 too.

In February 2014 Warwick District Council refused planning permission to the application W/13/1688 (Barwood Development) on the next field. This was due to the way the land lies that can be seen from Warwick Gates. The land is the same in the other field on Tachbrook Hill Farm and the same problems with there too.


We think that the best Gypsy and Travellers site are:

GT15 - Land east of Europa Way - This site is good as it was be protected from noise from the road by the trees and the entrance will be wider for caravan to get on and off.

Gtalt01 - Brookside Willows, Banbury Road - This site is good as it has permission for a caravan site already, there will be tree to protect from the noise from the road and the entrance is wider for caravan to get on and off.