This is Green Belt land. Many of the proposed alternatives are not. Many of the alternatives are also away from existing developments.
This site is next to an attractive link between Warwick and the villages. People come and spend time here on foot, bicycle and boat. They will not find the area as pleasant with housing and commercial vehicles so close.
I do not believe that school numbers at Budbrooke are falling to any significant degree.

This site is on Green Belt.
Severe road safety issue of traffic and plant equipment pulling out of site onto busy arterial road as travellers seek work and refuse vehicles servicing the site.
Impact on historic Hatton locks and the completed canal walkways along a natural corridoor into Warwick. Environmental concerns of rubbish being disposed of (flytipped) in the area impacting on the natural features of the area. Position of site would harm the character of the area as this is impacts on the visual impact as tourists approach Historic Warwick.

This proposed site on the Birmingham Road would significantly increase the traffic congestion,on a road already plagued by delays and accidents.The proximity to the Shell service station would compound this problem.

I object to the use of this land for the following reasons:

The traffic on the A4177 is already very heavy in mornings and evenings, due in part to vehicles turning into Ugly Bridge Road and the Shell Filling Station. Additional traffic will be added by the proposed development opposite this site and adjacent to Hatton Park.

Having Gypsy and Traveller children and animals in the field adjacent to the road is unsafe due to traffic speed and volume.

This approach to Warwick is frequently used by visitors to the town and castle from the north who prefer not to use the motorway or have used the Scenic Drive along the B4439 Hockley Road - to have such a site will not provide an attractive approach to the town.

The sale and use of the site by or for Warwick DC by a former Warwickshire Councillor is surely a conflict of interest?

The reasons used against site GT13 (Kites Nest Lane) making it unsuitable also apply in the majority for GT19:
* Green Belt
* Remote from services and facilities
* High quality landscape
* Access issues

As a local resident I am struggling to find any positive justification for the health and welfare of a small community of people, children and animals to live next to a very busy and dangerous A4177 at the proposed site for some of the reasons as explained below which are shared with the local community for whome some like me have lived in the area for over 10 years. I also understand that some of the Gypsy community feel the same way which also raises the question of whether this land would ever actually be settled on by any travellers passing through the area and so this would effectively become an un managed waste ground bringing another set of health and safety problems.
The Gypsy and Traveller Site is proposed to be on Green Belt land. To build on Green Belt land Central Government require there to be genuinely 'Exceptional Circumstances'. However no such 'Exceptional Circumstances' appear to have been advanced.
There is an inconsistency as the Council class the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site both as Grade 3 agricultural land that as such should be protected from development by the development of brown-field sites; as well as designating it 'Previously Developed Land' when selecting those potential Gypsy and Traveller Sites that are most suitable for development.
A key argument used by the Council for the rejection of Site 2 as a development site for houses was its proximity to the canal. Therefore the same criteria must be used as an argument to reject the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.
Similarly a planning application concerning storing caravans at this site was recently rejected by Warwick District Council and by an Inspector at appeal, which is clearly completely incompatible with the designation of this site as a proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.
How is it that the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site, that opens onto the busy A4177 and is immediately adjacent to the proposed site for 70-90 new houses, is preferred over the Kites Nest site that is very much more isolated and not on a main road?
The proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site puts the longstanding businesses of the owner of the site at risk and reduces the value of their remaining land, with obvious negative consequences, which raises the possibility of the taxpayer being required to pay compensation.
In addition the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site would separate and dominate the longstanding community of 14 homes recognised to exist by the previous Inspector.
Warwick District Council do appear to have agreed to use taxpayers money to carry out compulsory purchase to obtain land for Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which would be contrary to the wishes of Central Government.

I consider this site unsuitable due to the incremental use of Woodway which it will bring about - especially with large vehicles which Travellers tend to use. Woodway is a narrow road where passing is difficult and already used as a rat run. Having a Travellers Site at one end of it will only make it even worse.

The A4177 is a very busy link to and from Warwick making access and egress from this site unsafe, particularly for children.
There have been numerous accidents in the immediate vicinity including 2 fatalities in the last 5 years.
The development of this site for this purpose would have a detrimental effect on the adjacent canal amenity.
The site is within the green belt.
The local schools are full to capacity and that is with each recently having had a new classroom.

I am objecting to the proposed site for travellers on the busy 4177. The site in question is flanked on one side by the busy 4177 and also by the canal on the other side. The road has had various accidents including fatalities in the past few years. There was an accident only last week which brought the police in to direct traffic on a busy bend where there are double white lines. Water and heavy traffic is not compatible for a travellers site due to the danger to the children of the travellers. The canal is a local amenity used by many and the proposed siting of this camp would be detrimentle to the local community and indeed to the canal traffic.
The schools are already overloaded with the two closest having had to each build new classrooms on to take the numbers.
As for doctors and hospitals they are already working to full capacity and even more so with the proposed new housing as well as ongoing building of new developments attached to existing estates.

I object to this site to be occupied by travellers. It is unsuitable due to the extremely busy road conditions and that it is directly next to a tourist attraction of natural beauty - the canal stairway of locks. The road in this area gets extremely busy and is a very dangerous location for a travellers site. Also traffic noise is high as it's a common route for heavy vehicles 24/7. The popular tourist attraction on the canal is also has a higher elevation and overlooks the potential site.

- The owner of Oaklands Farm and suggested site is not willing to sell for this purpose.

- Road safety issue. Vehicles turning in and out of any entrance will
cause accidents. Not only is this on a bend but also close to an existing junction on a busy road with regular queuing traffic. No facility to provide filtered turning.

- Visual impact. Harmful to rural area and communities, including Hatton
Locks. Conflicts with character of area. It would not be possible to
integrate any site into this rural area.

- Increased traffic to an already congested Birmingham Rd at peak times.

- Lack of facilities for travellers. Schools are already over subscribed.

- Would be an appaling distruction of greenbelt. GT19 is Greenbelt and preservation should be in accordance with the NPPF.

- Position alongside the canal makes this site unsuitable.

- Noise and disruption to very close communities. This is a rural and peaceful area this would be completely taken away.

- Overpopulation and density of rural area.

- Encouragement and likelihood of illegal sites and or this site spreading.

The owner of Oaklands Farm and suggested site is not willing to sell for this purpose.

- Road safety issue. Vehicles turning in and out of any entrance will
cause accidents. Not only is this on a bend but also close to an existing junction on a busy road with regular queuing traffic. No facility to provide filtered turning.

- Visual impact. Harmful to rural area and communities, including Hatton
Locks. Conflicts with character of area. It would not be possible to
integrate any site into this rural area.

- Increased traffic to an already congested Birmingham Rd at peak times.

- Lack of facilities for travellers. Schools are already over subscribed.

- Would be an appaling distruction of greenbelt. GT19 is Greenbelt and preservation should be in accordance with the NPPF.

- Position alongside the canal makes this site unsuitable.

- Noise and disruption to very close communities. This is a rural and peaceful area this would be completely taken away.

- Overpopulation and density of rural area.

- Encouragement and likelihood of illegal sites and or this site spreading.

I deeply object to the Birmingham Road site being considered as a suitable site. Your argument as to why this site is suitable has many flaws. You mention that the site is currently used by the Camping and Caravan Club, and your proposal would see less traffic. I disagree. The proposed site is actually rarely used and 99% of the time is empty. How can you therefore compare the amount of traffic now to what it might be? There is also an ongoing proposal to build more housing and to develop the Hatton Park estate further. The plans for this development would be using the Ugly Bridge Road access point as the entrance - directly opposite this proposed site. Both cannot use the same entrance point without having a serious impact on Birmingham Road, which between 8 - 9 everyday is gridlocked. The impact on the environment and historic/natural interest of the area would be enormous. You mention how you would need to increase the habitat buffer between the water and the site. The cost that Warwick DC spend on marketing this stretch of canal on an annual basis must be considerable and I question how allowing a site to develop in this location would encourage more people to visit. This area is of great natural beauty and attracts both local walkers and tourists and I am not sure how you are protecting this by allowing a site with no regulation to develop in this location. You also state that there must be an opportunity for peaceful intergration into the local community. As of this morning, 26/3/14, there were 2 illegal caravans, parked on the extension of Ugly Bridge Road, leading into Hatton Park. I notice the gate to stop general access has been opened without consent and they are currently camped illegally. Your intention to create only 5 sites in this area is naive and can only see this event happening more, as more are attracted to the area on the understanding a site is available.

Safe access to road network - site is on A4177 an extremely busy and dangerous road where there have been many accidents and fatalities.
Adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment - the site is in full view on the main A4177 route into Historic Warwick which may cause a negative impact on tourism. It is adjacent to the canal which is greatly visited by tourists because of the 'Stairway to Heaven' lock Flight which dates back to 1799.
Integration without harming the character of the landscape - approx. 1 month ago 3-4 gypsy caravans arrived on the land opposite the proposed site forcing the gated driveway. After 1 week they left. I walked through the area and was disgusted to see what they left behind - approx 12 bin bags full of rubbish, half of which had been dumped in the brook. The site was littered with general rubbish, faeces, food scraps, household waste and 2 large calories gas cylinders. One area had been used as a toilet or for emptying the toilet judging by the faeces and baby wipes. How can they be so disrespectful to an area?
Promotes co-existence - I do not see how this can happen when they clearly do not value or respect the land in which they live on (see above comments). Residents nearest the site would be proportionally outnumbered by the gypsies which does not promote a frame work of co-existence.
The land is Green Belt and under the governments guidelines should not be used unless in VERY exceptional circumstances.
The summary of the area states that it is already used by the Caravan and camping Club. This is on an infrequent basis by touring caravans who generally stay for a short period of time. I travel past the site daily and the caravans that are there are very insignificant. This is in total contrast to large gypsy caravans on a permanent site which are there day in day out. There are also the large additional vehicles needed for towing purposes.

We are writing to formally object to the gypsy and traveller site planned on GT19, Birmingham Road.


We believe that gypsy's and travellers should be treated with dignity and respect and their safety is of upmost importance. We therefore feel that you have not clearly considered the safety implications of placing families next a canal (containing multiple deep locks) with no lighting and next to a very busy road (GT19, birmingham road in Warwick). The site could be extremely dangerous and we would be very concerned for the safety of young children living on this site.


These plans are also compromised by the fact you are placing families in a high risk flood area, with schools already at full capacity, and in a dangerous area for crossing a busy road by pedestrians/cars. Access to this site and parking would be hazardous. There is no footpath or pedestrian crossing. Placing a pedestrian crossing at this site would cause major congestion on this very busy road. There are also no amenities other than the petrol station nearby.


We also have concerns about the impact this will have on the landscape as the canal and it's many locks are a place of natural beauty and visited by tourists throughout the year. We are also concerned about the impact of noise from the site.


It needs to be also recognised that recently travellers forced entry onto the footpath opposite the shell garage on Birmingham road (near to GT19). After a week, they left, leaving a deluge of rubbish. This has upset a lot of residents on hatton park. We need to be mindful of this and respect the needs of residents if travellers are to be integrated into the local community. The recent forced entrance was not viewed positively.


The pressure on schools and dangers outlined above need to be emphasised. I strongly encourage WDC to reject the GY19 site on birmingham road.

As a resident of Hatton Park, in addition to the comments already made by many others, I would like to voice my own concerns about the proposal to use the Oaklands Farm as the place for the development of a new traveller site comprising 5 pitches:

1) Safety :

a. If used as a site for travellers, one can only expect the frequency of people driving into and out of Oaklands Farm to increase dramatically. This has to be seen as an increased risk of potential accidents, and we cannot ignore the fact that there have been already 2 fatal incidents on Birmingham Road in the last few years.
b. Oaklands Farm lies below the level of Birmingham Road, and its conspicuousness is exacerbated by the lack of thick bushes or hedgerows around the area. A traveller's site with its daily activity would undoubtedly attract the attention of drivers passing by and could lead to an increase in the number of distractions, and possibly accidents.
c. The presence of travellers should not necessary be linked to a higher crime rate, but a higher probability for crime in the area may be triggered by having temporary neighbours with perhaps a different understanding about property and personal possession. A greater police presence in the community would undoubtedly be necessary. We cannot forget that the Hatton Park community has grown in the last years to include up to 800 families, made up of hard working people who in the most part have to leave their homes unattended during the day. I do not think it is necessary to point out that the amount of council tax generated by the Hatton Park community ought to help pay towards safeguarding our homes and our belongings.

2) Environment :

a. The nearby canal is today a well maintained and clean attraction both for its neighbours, visitors as well as various families of birds who have chosen this place as their breeding ground. The current state of the canal cannot be jeopardised, and it would be crucial to enforce controls ensuring that waste produced by the travellers is not disposed of into the canal or the surrounding area.
b. Due to the difference in ground level between Oaklands Farm and Birmingham Road, the site is often flooded after periods of heavy rain and would undoubtedly create a very difficult and potentially dangerous environment for any families living there in caravans. I remember seeing the land several times under 2 - 5 inches of water.

3) Cohabitation and Image:

a. Due to the origins of the travellers, there will certainly be different cultural influences defining their day to day activities, and the way in which special events are celebrated. Differences between what the travellers and the current community consider acceptable with regards to timetables, noise levels and general behaviour could lead to unnecessary friction and unpleasantness on both sides. I do not think it is unreasonable to foresee that the unavoidable increased noise levels would have a massive negative impact on the families living nearby.
b. The cultural differences of the travellers may even extend to their perception of order and cleanliness. Due to the very visible location of Oaklands Farm, any mess on the site will be highly visible from Birmingham Road and from the canal. This is something that the neighbours should not have to tolerate.
c. Any image loss in this area would directly impact Hatton Park and its surroundings, turning it from a highly desirable and sought-after location into a second or third-rate option. Who will take responsibility for a potential devaluation of all the homes in the area, and how would a new traveller site on Oaklands Farm impact the house prices of the new homes that are planned to be built nearby?

In summary, I would suggest that the maximum priority has to be finding a place where these families can settle in the right conditions:

a) In a safe location, away from a busy road with lots of traffic and potential hazards.
b) In a more secluded and private location, out of the eye of onlookers and passing drivers.
c) In a more sheltered location, protecting the families and their caravans from heavy rain and flooding.
d) In a place with a proper drainage system for rain and black water and safe electricity infrastructure.
e) In a location where the schools are not already fully occupied and where the children would be genuinely welcomed into the community.
f) In a place where the families could fully enjoy their own lifestyle and celebrations without disturbing neighbours and risking being misunderstood.

I hope that I have been able to bring some fresh ideas to the debate.

I am totally against the choice of this site for the following reasons :
[ 1 ] This is a busy and dangerous road,and cars pulling caravans into and out of this site would present further chances of accidents.
[ 2 ] This development is not in keeping for a popular route into Warwick.
[ 3 ] The proposal for a moderately small hotel with a marina an this site would not only provide employment, but also enhance the attraction for visitors to Hatton Locks

The proposed site is unsuitable because:-
A. The proximity to deep water could be a health and safety hazard for young children on the site.
B. The proximity of water could lead to misuse of it for several purposes.
C. The main road would also be a danger to young children on the site.
D. There would be interruptions to traffic flow on an already busy road.
E. The main road bends adversely to visibility for users of the site when leaving it.
F. There are no indigenous facilities which the site occupants could use.

I wish to object to the proposed gypsy site at Oaklands Farm,Hatton.
The site is not suitable for so many reasons.
1. right next to the canal (not safe for children!)
2 the canal at Hatton is a tourist attraction (gypsy caravans are hardly appealing)
3 the Birmingham road is very dangerous, there have been two deaths recently, therefore this is not a suitable site for large vehicles or for familys to be living.
4 the local plan say says there will be 90 houses built directly opposite this site. This is pure madness, to base a gypsy site right next to a planned new development of houses.
5 Hatton Park, a very large family housing development is 200 yard away from the proposed gypsy site.
6. There could be trouble between the Gypsy and the local residents who received no support form Warwick District Council when the Gypsy were based one mile away at Kites Nest Lane, there is already very bad feeling around the residents of Hatton Park toward these people.

I would to lodge my objections to the proposed traveler site on Birmingham Road (reference GT19).
The Birmingham Road is fast road, and I feel the extra traffic would negativity effect the road's flow and safety.
The site is to be located between a National trust canal and a busy road, surely the safety of the children could be at risk?
Has the National Trust been consulted on environmental effects this could have to the popular site?
The local school system is already under pressure and suffering very poor results, an influx of children that require a 'bit' more attention will not help this situation, presuming no extra funding is provided for permanent TA support in each class..
The site is located opposite a proposed development of up to 300 new houses. Although I'm not sure how the developer will feel about this, this extra load on the local services (road/schools/power/water/etc) will not help the situation. Will the developer be forced to improve the facilitates for the traveler community as well?
Has consideration be given to the extra noise and light pollution that will effect the new houses opposite? (dogs and generators & rubbish burning etc).
Thank you for taking the time to read this

The potential development of this site goes against previous representations by the landowner to develop the site to offer caravan storage. This request was declined for a range of reasons that would be present by changing the use to a gypsy site. More crucial for the economy of the local area, the site would have a detrimental impact on the attractiveness of the Hatton Locks. The area in question already supports a migrating population of canal boat users so increasing the population is not practical.

I object to this proposal on the following grounds;
The site is green belt
Its location will be detrimental to the character of the area particularly in respect to the significant tourist attraction of the adjacent canal & towpath.
The access & egress to the site will increase the danger to traffic using the A4177

Submission concerning the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Budbrooke Ward
I am writing as a Ward Councillor and would like to put forward various points for consideration. I would like to say at the start that I am not predetermined in my views and I am prepared to listen to other arguments on the subject of sites within WDC.
Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed
On 4th February this year The Minister responsible for Travellers, Brandon Lewis MP, said:
"Our policy strengthens protection of the greenbelt and the open countryside by making clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate for greenbelt development and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside. Unmet demand — whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing — is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelt to constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt."
Government policy has been supplemented by a Ministerial statement4 in July 2013 which, although focussing on development management decisions and the Interpretation of the G&TPP, sets the general approach expected by the Government with regard to providing sites in the Green Belt:

"... the single issue of unmet demand, whether for travellers' sites or conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development."

The G&TPP has been prepared on the basis that LPAs will make their own assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, rather than relying on regional allocations as had been required hitherto.

Oaklands Farm is a site within a wider hamlet of dwellings along the Birmingham Road, 4 houses immediately to the south towards Warwick, then beyond Ugly Bridge Lane, there is a Shell petrol station and a further 10 properties. Further along the road there is the roundabout and the entrance to Hatton Park. All the dwellings on the Birmingham Road are of long standing within the Green Belt. The farm has permission for caravan storage and a kennels business on the site. It has been the subject of many planning applications over the years and I would like to remind members of some of these incidents:

The following structures have been approved in the recent past
- A replacement dwelling and the replacement of the existing kennels.
- Permission for the existing vehicular access to remain for agricultural purposes only.
- Use of the barn for caravan repairs and servicing with the associated caravan parking area was also approved.

An application for using the site for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused by Warwick DC Planning Committee on the grounds of Green Belt with the following observations taken into consideration, the site is on a busy and fast main road which had had 2 fatal accidents in a near proximity within the last 5 years.
The landowner applied to extend the caravan storage business and for change of use from agricultural land use to storage, both applications were rejected by WDC as not being permissible in the Green Belt.

Much of my arguments for removing Oaklands Farm from the list of preferred sites is due to the Inspector's comments concerning the Kites Nest Travellers site, as that site is less than a mile away from Oaklands Farm and the Green Belt argument was used very successfully in the removal of travellers. I will say that the same arguments can be used with regard to Oaklands Farm.

To quote from the Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal dated 22nd October 2013

"For development to be allowed in the Green Belt, very special circumstances need to be identified. What constitutes very special circumstances are not identified by local planning authorities. The term is consequently a moving target as appear to be the weights and measures used to arrive at a weighted decision. The appellants (at Kites Nest) provided a list of 15 issues that could be considered as very special circumstances as to why the development should be allowed. These did not include such common issues as health, education or children. The issues are complicated and fraught. I will ask what are the special reasons to consider overthrowing Green Belt policy at Oaklands Farm? from the paper put forward I can see none.


In Para 64 of his statement The previous Inspector involved with Kites Nest found that the development was very prominent through 'gappy hedges' and from public footpaths and that the existing caravans were an "extremely jarring element"; the Secretary of State agreed with this assessment.

The Oaklands Farm site would be very visible due to the 'gappy hedge' along the road and also from the canal, and also the road is higher than the site so occupants would be overlooked. In the current consultation document, comment is made that a habitat buffer would be required to the south of the site abutting the canal, I would argue that a landscape screening buffer would also be required for any gypsy or traveller site to give the residents privacy on both sides of the site, let alone the jarring element of the site for local incumbent residents and people passing along the road or canal.

The Inspector also found, and the Secretary of State agreed that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that community would be dominated by a 13-pitch scheme. The same applied to an 8-pitch scheme.
This also applies to Oaklands Farm as it is situated between 4 houses to the south, the petrol station to the north followed by a row of around 10 houses, so the proposal if pursued would dominate the local community along this road. The 5 proposed pitches would increase the property density by 25% along this stretch of road and therefore change the local dynamics.

83. To quote - Policy B of the Planning Policy for Travellers sites - PPTS says that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" and Policy D says that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community". The use of the term "community" is deliberate; it is not the same as settlement or that term would have been used. There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of community amongst the occupiers of the 10 or so dwellings in the immediate vicinity.

The previous Inspector accepted that 'the scattered houses 'do form an identifiable community.

Birmingham Road houses form a community and therefore I would argue that this site would be going against the Inspectors comments which have helped WDC in the past.

I would like to make two further comments on the Oakland Farm site, firstly the provision of education for gypsy and traveller children. It is suggested that the children could attend Budbrooke School, two comments should be made about this suggestion; Firstly Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton Green could not be looked at as an alternative as it too is full. Secondly, regarding children I would be very concerned about the health and wellbeing implications for young children living next to the canal.

Finally regarding this site if it is chosen I would say that the current landowner's business would be put at considerable risk and I would ask the question - would WDC be liable to pay compensation if the site is acquired under a CPO?

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

I will briefly cover the two option sites at Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey as the arguments I have put forward regarding the Oaklands Farm site can equally be used for these two options, both are within the green belt, so the Kites Nest arguments are very relevant. There is no exceptional circumstance argument for these sites to be used, they are very obvious from the main road, Hampton on the Hill being adjacent to the main Henley Road and the lane entering Hampton on the Hill village. The Norton Lindsey site is on the Warwick Rd approaching the village, so not only are they visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but also considering traveller privacy I would argue that they would face being over looked from the road and therefore their privacy would be lost. Both these roads, although subject to a 50mph restriction are very fast roads and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the sites by large vehicles with trailers attached.

Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey are both close village communities and as I have previously said both the indigenous community and the traveller community need to be considered for a cohesive community to be maintained. I would argue that the proposals would destabilise the balance of the communities to the detriment of both villagers and any site residents.

Both sites have been put forward for by land owners for change of use, in the case of Norton Lindsey for residential housing - this was rejected on the grounds of green belt and the busy road. Hampton on the Hill site is subject to an injunction to prevent any travellers entering the site and as far as I know this injunction was instigated by the District Council with the support of local residents to safeguard the site. I find it odd that the Planning Department are suggesting this site when it goes against their own policy!

I would therefore suggest that all three sites within the Birmingham Greenbelt should be withdrawn as being unsuitable, mainly due to the Inspectors views and also WDCs own policies, let alone government policy regarding G&T sites.

Barford Sites

Now I would like to turn to the Barford sites within my ward. I would first like to correct the consultation document, the doctor's surgery in the village closed over 30 years ago so would not be accessible for the travellers! Also the Barford Bypass has a sixty mph speed limit along it and is used by a large number of vehicles on a daily basis who exceed this limit. Cllr Caborn in his capacity as the County Councillor for this area is well aware of local concerns regarding the number of accidents along this road, I will say that children walking to school across this road would be put at considerable risk if either site went forward for further consultation. Neither site is within the Warwickshire green belt but they are within the Arden Parkland highlighted by the Kites Nest Inspector last year, so need to have special consideration due to their high landscape quality. Both sites would require Compulsory Purchase and would incur a great deal of Council Tax payer's money being spent.

Local people are very concerned about the inclusion of both sites:

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

The main arguments against this site have already been mentioned in my preamble, a dangerous road and lack of a doctor's surgery. The risk of flooding of the site has been shown over the last few weeks with the site being under water at some times. Basically it is common sense not to place people across a major road from facilities, children and fast traffic do not mix!

Secondly, GT12alt - land off Barford Bypass - proposal for 15 pitches

It's location on the inside of the bend has resulted in the Parish Council being told that the County Council will not support this scheme on grounds of road safety.

The other major reason to remove this site from the preferred options is the involvement of local people from within Barford who have been so active in enhancing this site following the securement from Warwickshire County Council of the lease of this land to the Parish Council. The acquisition of this land has allowed local people to have access to the river and they have put a great deal of work into site, following it's identification in the Barford Village Plan of 2005.
European LEADER money was applied for and granted for 25 rare and local trees to be planted in the orchard and the river walk to be created. Over 40 villagers have worked regularly on the site over the last 3 years .This means Thousands of pounds worth of 'in kind' contributions doing the following:
- cutting back undergrowth
- cutting and raking grass,
- digging and planting the Orchard and 25 River Walk Trees
- pollarding
- Learning how to prune
- creating and gravelling paths
- Creating steps and safe slopes
- Maintaining the grass paths and cutting the 'Wild' strips.
- Mowing the Orchard and open areas
- Installing Gates and benches.
- The local Heritage Group gave money for plaques and the Diamond Jubilee Oak.
Future plans include bee hives and a wild meadow area which has already been sown.

True Localism and community effort by local people.

Oldham's Bank is now part of a village walk which takes villagers through the Orchard and along the River. It has seating areas (much enjoyed by older members of the community) and the walk adjoins another footpath through to the neighbouring village of Wasperton

Oldham's bank has been listed as one of the Community assets on the recently submitted 'Community Right to Bid' submission

Whilst the site was "derelict" after CPO to build Barford Bypass it is also classified as "highway" and any move to use it would require all the legal process and expense to remove that status. The remainder of the site is in private ownership and is not being volunteered by the landowner so would require a separate CPO.

If this land were to be acquired as a Gypsy and Traveller Site I would argue that the likelihood of a "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" would be strained. The site is too large and would have a jarring impact on the landscape which is so vital to this area and the view across the Sherbourne from Barford would be spoilt.

In summing up, as Ward councillor for all these sites I would ask that they all be removed as they are not in the spirit of localism and would not benefit our local people or the gypsy and traveller community.

Many thanks for letting me know the situation.

The group of travellers have now been evicted.

Unfortunately they have left a lot of their rubbish behind and the path looks a right mess.

For so few people to cause such an eyesore is quite unbelievable. Who is responsible for tidying this up as they have been moved on?

As I mentioned in my previous e mail, any sympathy that local residents may have had for the plight of the travellers has now gone.

They illegally broke onto the property and then left all their rubbish, gas canisters etc for others to clear up.

Would you please pass my comments onto the department responsible for overseeing the planning application for Oaklands Farm and possible permanent Gypsy site.

I certainly don't want them anywhere near me if this is how their colleagues behave

I would like to put forward my objections to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on the A4177 .

1.The area will be borded on one side by the canal, another side by the busy A4177 main road in and out of Warwick, and a third by a narrow road and entrance to a petrol station. These all make it dangerous for children and animals, and could possibly cause accidents on an already accident prone main road.

2 The canal would be a magnet for the children, and I fear for their safety.

3. The plans submitted by the present resident of the property, which have been rejected, were far more in keeping with the area, bringing jobs and tourism to Warwick. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT BENEFIT A SITE OF 5+ CARAVANS WILL BRING TO THE HATTON AREA?

4. We have seen many times over the years flooding on the main road opposite this site.

5. The school at Budbrooke is already `struggling` and having children from traveller families, who do not stay long in one area, would put an extra burden on them.

6. The travellers have caused disturbances in the past at the petrol station, and the close proximity of the site would no doubt be of concern to the owners and customers of the Shell garage.

7. It would be very visible to visitors to the area, as it is below the height of the main road.

I hope you will take my objections into consideration.

As a resident of Hatton Park I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development at the above site, this would significantly degrade the area also the road conditions are totally unsuitable.

Whilst one assumes there are some obligations to provide such facilities, they should however be away from residential areas and located on brown field sites only.

On the basis that this is a highly charged and emotive issue and we live in a democratic society , I propose that any decisions are postponed until after the next council elections to enable all residents to vote on the issue.

As a resident of Hatton Park for 7yrs I am very upset to hear of a proposed Gypsy/Traveller site on the Birmingham Road near the Shell garage, my reasons are as follows.

1, There would be an unsightly view from the HIGHER Birmingham Road and from the lock side.

2, Traffic congestion would be inevitable on this already dangerous and accident prone stretch of road.

3, It would be detrimental to the nationally famous tourist attraction of Hatton Locks , the site would definitely unnerve and therefore discourage walkers , boaters, cyclists and in turn boat hirers and cafe businesses would suffer.These locks are an enormous asset to Warwick and should not be LOST, which will happen if the site is approved.

4, There would be an overloading affect on our local schools which are already over subscribed.

5, We have worked hard in Hatton to maintain a very high standard of community living, and with one BLOW! from the council it will be RUINED!

Please take my concerns seriously as it CONCERNS the FUTURE GENERATIONS of Hatton and Warwick

Objection to GT19 in response to the consultation document "Warwick District Council March 2014, Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, Preferred Options for Sites"
Dear Sir/Madam
I write to you to formally submit my objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on the land adjacent to the Shell Petrol Filling Station, Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Warwick (site reference GT19).
In summary, GT19 is not suitable for developing a Gypsy and Traveller site on the following grounds:
GT19 is not previously developed land
Inappropriate use of Green Belt
Safety for the Gypsies and Travellers, all pedestrians and all road users
Sustainability for the Gypsies and Travellers, local residents and Oaklands Farm
Inappropriate use of tax payers' money
Therefore, GT19 should be removed from the list of proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites, preferred, alternative or otherwise.
The supporting detail for the above objection has been set out in 3 sections below:
1. An appraisal of the summary for GT19 extracted from the Consultation Document
2. An appraisal of the Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment Criteria in relation to GT19
3. Other factors material to this objection
For ease of reading, the following terms will be used throughout this letter:
Consultation Document - the consultation document referenced above
GT19 - the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site referenced above
WDC - Warwick District Council
Oaklands Farm - the entire Oaklands Farm site of which GT19 is part
A4177 - the Birmingham Road running adjacent to the north side of GT19
1. Summary of preferred option sites, extracted from the Consultation Document for GT19
The following summary for GT19 is extracted from section 9, page 42 of the Consultation Document with specific comments and objections added in line:
a. The land is in the Green Belt but part of a larger use making it previously developed land. This statement is very misleading. Yes, of course some areas of the overall site areas have been previously developed, but GT19 is an open pasture and very clearly has not been previously developed meaning that it does not meet the PO1 criteria set out in the Consultation Document.
There have been a number of planning applications for Oaklands Farm to date and three of the most pertinent to this Consultation Document and this objection are referenced below:
i. For planning application W20020836, the present owner sought to store caravans and this was refused with the key reasons including:
Prominent position within the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area known as the Arden Parklands
Adjacent to the busy A4177
Close proximity to the Grand Union Canal which is very popular tourist destination for local residents and visitors to the area.
Seriously detrimental to the visual amenity
Not of sufficient merit to justify a breach of Green Belt policy
ii. Through previous planning application W20021250, the present owner sought permission to park caravans pre- and post-repair in an alternative area on the site. This was refused and all parking restricted to the area adjacent to the canal boundary and therefore the parking of caravans on GT19 was prohibited under this refusal. The reason cited was in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
iii. An outline planning application (W/10/0245) was submitted in 2010 to replace the existing dwelling at Oaklands Farm with a new dwelling at the eastern edge of GT19 extending into the Oaklands Farm site. This was approved in April 2011 and the reserved matters application (W/14/0474) was submitted in April 2014 which includes the detailed landscaping leaving the majority of GT19 as open land and being a very sensible use of the overall Oaklands Farm site to ensure its future viability.
These planning applications are the strongest indication that the Oaklands Farm site requires careful development to ensure its future viability whilst fully considering the needs of the Green Belt. It is also clear that through the previous refusals of planning applications that the development of GT19 as a Gypsy and Traveller site is not appropriate.
b. It is located adjacent to a petrol filling station and other houses and although faces open countryside currently, has an urban feel on this side of the Birmingham Road. The term "urban feel" is very subjective and is very misleading. There are only a handful of properties and buildings along this part of Birmingham Road and the views are dominated by open fields, the Grand Union Canal, trees and hedgerows. If a subjective assessment of this particular site was appropriate, I would suggest that the vast majority of people would assess as "rural feel" rather than "urban feel". As indicated through the various planning refusals for the development of GT19, this site is not suitable for developing as a Gypsy and Traveller site.
c. Currently this part of the land is used as a site for the Camping and Caravan Club so services are already available. GT19 only has water within its boundary, but there is a chemical toilet disposal point, toilet, electricity and gas available on Oaklands Farm.
d. The site area has been reduced from that originally considered to avoid other existing uses and retain the viability of the remaining unit. The viability of the remaining unit relies on the continued use of the caravan repair service, kennels and Camping and Caravan Club site, and all 3 income streams would be seriously impacted if GT19 went ahead:
Camping and Caravan Club: clearly the bookings would cease as that is the land being proposed for GT19.
caravan repair service: it is very hard to see how this would not be severely impacted as whilst there is little evidence that crime increases through the introduction of a Gypsy and Traveller site, there is a very strong public perception that it does. Therefore the general public are unlikely to continue to use the caravan repair service leaving their expensive caravans adjacent to GT19.
kennel business: the majority of gypsies and travellers have pet dogs and the general public are highly likely to avoid using the Oaklands Farm kennel service, being put off through risk of disease (from dogs and other pets belonging to the gypsies and travellers who have not had the recommended inoculations) and the likelihood of the dogs belonging to the gypsies and travellers running loose, barking and frightening their pets whilst boarding at the kennels and during drop off and pick up.
e. The existing access points are already used for the Camping and Caravan Club caravans and fewer movements of large vehicles would take place on a permanent site. The proposed GT19 site does not have access to the A4177 via the access point used by the Camping and Caravan Club. It is highly unlikely that the Highways Department would approve an extra access point onto the A4177 on highway safety grounds due to visual splay issues and distance to other access points already there. Using the Ugly Bridge Road access point would not be possible for similar reasons and this access has been specifically excluded by WDC for any use other than agricultural in the interest of highway safety under planning application W20021250.
The movement of the large, permanent caravans would be extremely dangerous for any access point to GT19 and it has been made clear that the proposal would provide for smaller caravans on each pitch which would be moved much more frequently and significantly than for the existing Caravan and Camping Club site which only has a handful of movements per week.
f. This site could connect to the existing foul sewer. The toilet and chemical toilet disposal point for the Camping and Caravan Club site are located next to the existing dwelling at Oaklands Farm which is approximately 60m from GT19.
g. A habitat buffer would be required along the line of the watercourse which flows along the southern boundary. In order to screen GT19 from passing traffic and pedestrians, a significant additional buffer would be required all the way around the site as the existing hedges and trees are intermittent in places and being largely deciduous, for around 50% of the year, they provide very little screening. This would reduce the stated 0.3 hectare area meaning that achieving 5 pitches is highly unlikely.
h. The land is Grade 3 agricultural land and therefore not of the highest quality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) definition of grade 3 agricultural land is "good to moderate quality agricultural land". It is clear to see that this field would make a perfect grazing pasture which is indeed the case for a number of fields in the local area. Just because the current owner has chosen not to use the field in this way is no reason to suggest the land should be developed as a Gypsy and Traveller site.
i. The Priority area school would be Budbrooke Primary School where numbers are falling. The school does currently take children from Warwick which is out of its catchment area. A bid has been made for funding to expand this school based on the knowledge that there could be more 'in area' children in the future when new village housing is developed. The sustainability, numbers and future of the school are all currently unclear as the school has recently been put into special measures. There is a very active parent group working to resolve this situation and quickly and it is looking very likely the school will become an Academy. Exactly what this means is yet to be established and therefore, the availability of places to serve children resident on GT19 is also in question.
j. There is a GP surgery located at Hampton Magna (1.1 miles) and public transport is provided by the 68 bus service, the 60 bus service (irregular) and the 511 bus service (irregular) all of which pass the site. There is a serious error here on the viability of the public transport links to support GT19:
 The 60 service is a Warwick College inter-campus service, so the frequency and availability to the public is in question.
The 511 service is very infrequent (not irregular) only running on Wednesday and Saturday with just one outward and one return bus on each of those days.
The 68 service stops on the A4177 opposite GT19 on its way into Warwick and the return stop is 0.25 mile away at the bottom of Hatton Park. In both cases, passengers would need to cross the A4177 which is extremely dangerous with no pavements on the GT19 boundary to the A4177 or Ugly Bridge Road. There is the alternative of using the canal tow path to cross further up the A4177 at the pedestrian refuge island (at Middle Lock Lane) but this extends
the distance to the bus stop to over 1 mile for journeys into Warwick and 0.75 mile for return journeys making the shorter route or dangerous shortcut across the petrol filling station the much more likely route.
k. Subject to agreement with the landowner, this site could be delivered within 5 years. Due to the issues identified above around the viability of the remaining unit, it is highly unlikely this is achievable.
2. Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment Criteria
The council has based its assessment of the proposed sites on clear criteria set out in section 6.1, page 13 of the Consultation Document. These are included below with specific comments and objections added in line:
Criteria Comments and Objections 1 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport There is a GP surgery approximately 1.1 miles way and infant/junior school approximately 1.4 miles away, and as noted above the availability of places is in doubt because the school is currently in special measures and the future plans for the school are unclear. The public transport is very limited to this site (see details above) and pedestrian access to the bus stops referenced is very dangerous. 2 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding A full survey should be carried out as there is a water course running along the southern boundary approximately 1m below the site level and during wetter periods the site can get very waterlogged. 3 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site It is highly unlikely that this criterion can be met without significant development of the road system. The proposed site does not include access to the A4177 and an additional access to the A4177 is unlikely on highway safety grounds. Using the Ugly Bridge Road access would be extremely dangerous and has been specifically limited to agricultural use by WDC through a previous planning application (W20021250) again on highway safety grounds. 4 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance The site is right next to the busy A4177 and therefore it is highly unlikely that acceptable noise levels can be reached. It is also adjacent to the petrol filling station which operates 24x7 therefore having a steady stream of vehicles throughout the night and night lighting which would be very intrusive for the Gypsies and Travellers living just a few
metres away. 5 Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc) GT19 only has water provision with all other services available on Oaklands Farm. 6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment This cannot be achieved. There have been various planning applications to WDC for GT19 and in all but one case the application has been refused with various reasons which equally apply to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site. The key reasons for refusal are:  Prominent position within the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area known as the Arden Parklands  Close proximity to the Grand Union Canal which is a very popular tourist destination for local residents and visitors to the area.  Seriously detrimental to the visual amenity The only planning application for GT19 to be approved is an outline planning application (W/10/0245) to replace the existing dwelling at Oaklands Farm with a new dwelling at the eastern edge of GT19 extending into the Oaklands Farm site. This was approved in April 2011 and the reserved matters application (W/14/0474) was submitted in April 2014 which includes the detailed landscaping leaving the majority of GT19 as open land and being a very sensible use of the overall Oaklands Farm site to ensure its future viability. 7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision This is not possible. The canal towpath runs along the entire length of the south side of GT19 at a higher elevation, and there are views from the A4177 across GT19 to the canal. Even if adequate screening could be provided, the open nature of the area and views over the canal will be severely impacted, and without adequate screening, the visual amenity of the area would be severely impacted. Developing GT19 as a Gypsy and Traveller site will severely harm the character of the area which would have a significant impact on the local community and visitors to the area who come to enjoy the Grand Union Canal with views over the open countryside and Warwick. 8 Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community The overriding feeling in the local community is that GT19 will not add any value to the local community and is not a suitable location for a Gypsy and Traveller Site. Therefore, a
peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community is highly unlikely. With the towpath just a few metres from GT19, any issues with dogs running loose or barking at passing walkers (some with their pet dogs) and cyclists will at best be a nuisance and more likely to introduce a significant danger with a canal lock adjacent on the other side. Any issues will directly impact local tourism and deter the people who regularly walk along the towpath to seek other routes which would be a great loss to the overall community. 9 Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services The road network in the local area is currently severely stretched and already creates significant local frustration. The introduction of GT19 would compound that situation further. 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 Due to the very small size of the site, it is doubtful that this can be achieved unless the number of pitches is significantly reduced or the nature of the proposed work was office/computer based rather than requiring a workshop, outbuildings or yard.
3. Others factors material to the objection of GT19
a. Green Belt There are a number of policies relating to the Green Belt and refusals of previous planning applications which very clearly indicate that the development of GT19 as a Gypsy and Traveller site would be inappropriate. Some of the key relevant policies are:
i. Section 9 "Protecting Green Belt land" of the National Planning Policy Framework published March 2012 This sets out a number of policies specifically relating to the protection of the Green Belt. There are 3 in particular which should be considered in relation to the GT19 proposal:
87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason
of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
buildings for agriculture and forestry;
provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or
limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
With the required 31 pitches being achievable through the other preferred sites or alternative sites there are clearly not "very special circumstances" sufficient to warrant the use of GT19 by outweighing the harm to the green belt. Additionally, the policy above (reference 89) excludes the building of any amenity blocks which would therefore not allow the criteria to be met as set out in the Planning Policy For Traveller Sites published in March 2012.
ii. Kites Nest Lane Beausale, Warwick - planning application W/12/1428 Planning permission was refused on 6/2/2013 for a change of use at this site from agriculture and keeping of horses to a gypsy and traveller site:
The reason(s) for the Council's decision for refusal is/are:
1 The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the West Midlands Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and so is harmful by definition. There would also be encroachment and harm to the openness of this part of the Green Belt resulting from both the change of use and erection of buildings inherent with a gypsy caravan site. This together with the significant harm to the character and appearance of the Arden Regional Character Area and component Ancient Arden and Arden Parklands landscape type as defined by the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines SPG amount to substantial other harm which cannot satisfactorily be mitigated by the proposed concept landscaping scheme. On the other side of the balancing exercise it is accepted that there is a quantified and unmet need for permanent gypsy and traveller pitches in Warwick District contrary to national policy and that some of the personal circumstances of some of the applicants need to be given some weight. However it is appropriate to allow the emerging Warwick District Local Plan process to run its course since there is a
likelihood that that need could be met either on sites outside the Green Belt or if necessary less attractive sites within the Green Belt. It is considered that such factors do not amount to very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the policy presumption against the identified harm to the Green Belt.
The same fundamental principles apply to GT19.
iii. Planning Policy For Traveller Sites The government published the Planning Policy For Traveller Sites in March 2012. There are a number of key policies in this document which have been covered above and the most significant policy which is not met by the proposed GT19 site is:
Policy E: Traveller sites in Green Belt 14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development.
This policy coupled with the fact that there are sufficient pitches available across the other preferred and alternative sites which are not in the Green Belt means that very special circumstances do not exist, and therefore this makes GT19 unsuitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site.
b. Safety The A4177 is a very busy road, dangerous for cars and very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists with a number of serious accidents over the last few years with a number of fatalities. This situation continues to get worse due to the increased volume of traffic on the A4177 and bottleneck at Stanks Island into Warwick.
Due to the proximity to the busy A4177, Ugly Bridge Road and the canal, it would be necessary to secure the site on all sides to prevent pets and children straying outside of GT19 endangering themselves and other road users.
Crossing the A4177 is extremely dangerous - if crossing to or from GT19 there are numerous accesses and road junctions for pedestrians to aware of and there are no pavements on the A4177 side. Additionally, there is no street lighting on any side of GT19 making pedestrian access at night a particular problem.
The canal runs behind the site and would present a significant risk to young children. The houses in the community with children have large and secured gardens and it is very rare to see small children along the canal without their parents due to the danger of the canal itself and in particular the locks.
The access to the site will present a significant problem and it is difficult to see how access can be provided without introducing significant additional risk to road safety especially for the delivery of 25m mobile homes and regular movements of 15m trailers.
c. Sustainability The level of traffic on the A4177 and the commonly used routes through Warwick and Leamington Spa is already at the point where the daily lives of local residents is being severely impacted.
In morning rush hour, the 1 mile journey from the bottom of Hatton Park to Stanks Island can take up to 30 minutes; it regularly takes 15 minutes and in extreme cases
can be 1-2 hours if there is an accident on the M40 or M42. Additional traffic, however low in volume, should not be added to this locality without proper measures being taken in the wider road network.
Due to the small size of the site, it is unlikely that provision for Gypsies and Travellers to work on the site would be possible.
As outlined above, the delivery of GT19 would make the existing Oaklands Farm site unviable and would have a significant negative impact on the current owner's livelihood.
d. Size of site The government published the "Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites - a Good Practice Guide" in May 2008. This outlines a number of considerations including pitch size, access, buffers and screening with some of the more relevant points relating to GT19 being:
accommodate trailers up to 15m, up to 2 smaller touring caravans and 2 additional vehicles
provide a suitable recreational area for children with no other suitable play area in the surrounding area
provide amenity buildings
provide access roads in the site to a minimum width of 3m.
For practical reasons, caravan sites require a greater degree of land usage per household than for smaller houses and Gypsy and Traveller sites are no exception.
Additionally, once populated, the small site would have very limited flexibility for visitors which would be seriously detrimental to the lifestyle of Gypsies and Travellers and would run a very high risk of illegal occupation of surrounding fields and properties to accommodate visitors to GT19. There has already been significant disruption to the local community at the Kites Nest site and at the lower end of the footpath leading up to King Edwards Park, and this is not a situation that the local community wishes to be repeated.
Considering all of the above, it is very doubtful that GT19 could deliver 5 pitches and therefore would fall below the government guideline of between 5 and 15 pitches per site. Additionally, when considering the likely cost and further erosion in the number of pitches to fully address the safety issues and with the ability to deliver the full number of 31 pitches through other sites, it does not make sense to proceed with GT19.
e. Inappropriate use of tax payer's money
As indicated in the "size of site" section above, the maximum number of pitches that GT19 could support is likely to be 3-4.
There would be a significant cost implication of developing GT19 including:
Purchase of GT19
Site preparation including hard standing, connection to services and suitable screening
Site safety considerations including perimeter security to prevent children and pets wandering onto the road or canal
Site access and highway safety considerations for vehicles, likely to include significant re-development of the road system adjacent to the site
Highway safety considerations for pedestrians - to include a crossing of some description and the addition of suitable lighting at night
Compensation for the economic impact to Oaklands Farm
The total of the above would therefore run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and in excess of £100,000 per pitch. As a tax payer to WDC, I would be appalled at this level of expense and I know that this would be a view shared by the vast majority of WDC tax payers.
I look forward to seeing the revised proposal for the development of Gypsy and Traveller sites with GT19 removed as a result of this consultation.

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposal GT19 of the Gypsy & Traveller plan. My grounds for objection are:

- too close to established housing
- existing green belt land that should not be constructed upon
- over subscribed local schools (due to suffer further due to planned residential housing)
- unsuitable access directly onto the main Birmingham road that suffers from high speed and is an established accident black spot
- adverse affect to tourism in Warwick, the road is one of the main access points to Warwick from Birmingham & Solihull, and resulting effect on commerce

I wish to raise an objection to the proposed Gypsy/Traveller site GT19 (Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road).

My family and I, have lived at Hatton Park since August 2006. We moved to the village because of it's beauty, location and size. There were no plans to extend or change the village and its surroundings and am dismayed to hear that the council want to change an area of beauty, and destroy the sanctity of Hatton Park.

The council have submitted plans to extend the village and now have shortlisted an area and are proposing making this area a permanent site for travellers!!

The council have rejected other areas to build on siting that they are too visible or will harm the local wildlife........this is hypocritical from the council now they deem it to suit there needs.

How can the council have plans to extend an already big enough village, (which only has one small store and no school), and also want to put a traveller site directly opposite the new housing? The council want to take up Green Belt land for these houses, and then change Oakland Farm to a residential area for travellers.

THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. Oakland farm has breached the council boundaries and guidelines on many occasions, using the land for purposes it was not intended for, and now the council want to grant the land to have a 'change of usage' now the time suits!!

The local schools cannot not cope, as 2013 has been a bumper year and schools places are harder to find. Hatton Park was split down the middle and allocated to different school catchment areas, because either school could not manage; now you want to increase it!!

* You want to ruin the local area (for visitors, residents and the café at Hatton Locks - whom trade will diminish),
* Downgrade Hatton Locks tourist attraction (no one will want to walk past or even go near a traveller site, as well known and documented),
* Make the canal an unsafe and unpleasant area (incurring dirt, rats, waste, rubbish)
* Increase traffic (with unsuitable roads at rear - on ugly bridge road),
* Lower house prices (Hatton Park is one of the sought after areas - because of it's beauty, lower crime, pleasant area to live and be in - and safe for our children),
* Encourage crime into the area (direct theft, break ins - indirect 'tinkers' looking for scrap, rummaging through rubbish/skips etc),
* As well to increase pollution and waste by having travellers move to an area that is unsuitable.

These are facts that are associated with the presents of travellers, and no consideration is being given to the local, tax paying residents whom deserve to keep their area as nice and sought after as it is presently.

Please consider want the 'locals want' and need for their area/areas (wherever they are to be settled around the county, the local residents must be looked after- this is their area, land, residence and have worked hard for it!!)

Put the travellers in an area that they are safe, contained, and an area fitting to accommodate their way of life that doesn't impact on residents whom work hard to live in such a beautiful area as Warwickshire.

As Warwickshire residents whom pay all their taxes, fees, deserve to have a voice........keep Warwickshire's reputation, and keep it protected.

Save Hatton Park from demise.

I look forward to your thoughts, answers and suggestions for other areas that well suited for the travelling community.

I would like to put on record my objection to the Gypsy/traveller site on Birmingham Road.

I am also concerned and would like to know why the consultation process is not being handled in an open and transparent way. I have received a letter over the week end from the Hatton Park Action Group saying no notice had not been given to Residents and HPAG regarding a meeting to be held today at 3pm at Leamington Town Hall where this site is being discussed.

Please will you acknowledge receipt of this objection.