To the Development Policy Manager
Development Services
RE: WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION MARCH 2014
- SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS PREFERRED OPTONS FOR SITES
RESPONSE TO PROPOSED SITE GT19 (LAND ADJACENT SHELL PETROL FILLING STATION, BIRMINGHAM ROAD, BUDBROOKE, WARWICK)
Various arguments have been proposed by Hampton Magna Residents' Association to assist me in formulating my response. Having considered these arguments and the Consultation Documents and the criteria for responses, I wish the following to be considered as my own personal submission on the subject.

Criterion: Impact on the green belt
Site GT19 is in the Green Belt. Of the five preferred option sites currently shortlisted it is the only one in the Green Belt. The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt Land should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

On 1 July 2013, in his written statement to Parliament, Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister stated:
"Our policy document planning policy for traveller sites was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development ... .
... it has become apparent that, in some cases, the green belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.
The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the green belt."
This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his 17 January 2014 statement:
"The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt."
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states:
"Policy E: Traveller Sites in Green Belt
14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very exceptional circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development"
WDC has not shown very exceptional circumstances exist for including GT 19 in the list of preferred sites. This contravenes government policy.
The Consultation Document merely states that previous development has been permitted on the proposed site but it is equally the case that planning permission has also been refused due to its impact on the Green Belt.
In addition, the Green Belt argument was used against Kite's Nest site being a gypsy and traveller site. It is less than a mile away and the sites are in several aspects similar, therefore this argument applies equally if not more so to Site GT 19. To oppose the Kites Nest site on the grounds of impact on Green Belt and propose GT19 site when on Green Belt land would also show a lack of consistency in WDC's appraising of sites with similar issues.
The Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal stated:
"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."
Impact on the Green Belt should alone be a sufficient ground for refusal.

Criterion: Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)
It is my understanding that the owner of the land at site GT19, Robert Butler, does not want to sell it for a Traveller and Gypsy site. Therefore a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be needed and Warwick District Council has said that a CPO could be used. This is in complete contravention of ministerial statements.
The use of a Compulsory Purchase could set up conditions for a legal challenge.
If the GT19 site were to be approved it would put the current owner's business at considerable risk and so there would also be the question of compensation for the owners business that suffered as a consequence. Expenditure on this and a CPO would not be an appropriate use of limited financial resources of WDC.

Criterion: Proximity to other residential properties
The Kites Nest inspector 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 or 8 pitch scheme.
The same argument applies for site GT19 which is set within a group of houses 4 houses to the south and a Shell petrol station to the north followed by a further 10 houses. The provision of five pitches on this site would increase the housing density by 25 per cent and thus would change the local dynamics.
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 of the proposed GT19 site.
The Kites Nest inspector accepted that the scattered houses do form an identifiable community. Birmingham Road houses similarly form a community and therefore it could be argued that approval of site GT19 would be going against the inspector's comments which have helped WDC in the past.
PPTS Policy B, paragraph 11(a) states that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". PPTS - Policy C states that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community".
For the above reasons, selection of Site GT19 would appear to contravene these policies.

Criterion: Safe Access from the Site for vehicles and pedestrians.
Approval of the GT19 site would locate the pitches between the canal and a fast and busy road (Birmingham Road A4177). Traffic on this road is already dangerous and if proposed housing developments occur it would be set to increase. This road has had 2 fatal accidents in the last five years. There was also another serious accident in March 2014.
Movement of caravans and large vehicles in and out of the site on such a fast and busy road would not only be potentially dangerous to the proposed occupiers of the GT19 site it could increase the likelihood of more accidents to other traffic. In fact an application by the current owner for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused on the grounds of Green Belt citing the fact that the site is on a busy and fast main road (Birmingham Road A4177). To refuse the landowner's application on such grounds and then ignore them when assessing the GT19 proposal is contradictory.

Criterion: Impact on visual amenity including the visibility of the site and surrounding area.
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. Site GT19 would be similarly visible through gappy hedges.
The road is higher than the proposed site so that it would be overlooked. In the current consultation document reference is made to a habitat buffer being required to the canal side of the development. It could be argued that similar screening would be required on the road side to give the residents privacy from passing traffic and to screen off the caravans from the neighbouring houses. Screening issues for Site GT19 are even more extensive than Kites Nest.
Site GT 19 would also be visible from the canal which is a tourist attraction with its many locks and is likely to have an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. The present canal dates back to 1799 and the flight of 21 locks are well known among waterways aficionados and are a greatly valued heritage asset. There is also a great deal of narrow boat traffic, especially in the summer months, to see and use the 21 locks.


Criterion: Distance to nearby Schools ... etc.
Education would have to be provided for gypsy children and it has been suggested that children could attend Budbrooke School. Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton is also full.

Criterion: Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance
The five pitches present potential noise and disturbance for families living in close proximity.

Compliance with PPTS - health and wellbeing
It is noted that no criterion is listed to address this policy and it should be.
PPTS Policy B - Paragraph 11(e) states that local planning authorities should, ensure that their policies:
" provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development ."
The GT19 site is adjacent to a nearby a canal. There could be detrimental effects to the health and well being of young children living near the canal.
Also, to put children on a site near a potentially dangerous road does not appear to comply with this Policy.

Criterion: impact on heritage assets and setting of heritage assets

The flight of 21 locks was opened in 1799 and known as the "stairway to heaven". The tourist heritage side of Budbrooke is currently underdeveloped. Ramblers, joggers, dog walkers, cyclists, artists, photographers, bird watchers and other groups use the towpath. Then there is the river traffic. Narrow boat owners travel along the canal at weekends and for their holidays. Boats are also rented for holidays.
To locate the Gypsy and Traveller Site adjacent to this area would not enhance it but have an adverse affect and the history and heritage of the area.
We understand that the current owner of proposed GT19 site in conjunction with British Waterways has drawn up plans for a marina with a restaurant and a conference centre. This would include a heritage area with pictures and artefacts of traditional life so that local people and visitors could see and appreciate the lives of former generations.
The viability of this proposal should at least be considered in order to examine whether it could increase the tourist industry in the area and provide employment opportunities for local people.
It would seem that encouraging tourism, preservation of heritage, and possible employment opportunities should take precedence over inappropriate use of expenditure on CPOs and potential financial compensation.
I wish this document to be regarded as my personal representations against the GT19 site.

Yours sincerely

Frank Roper

We wish to object to the following proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers

GT19

This is not suitable for a family site because of close proximity to a busy main road and canal area. Will create increased traffic congestion at a junction with a main highway.

GTalt03

Inappropriate site that is too small. Would be out of character with the rest of Hampton on the Hill. Too close to busy road for family site.

RESPONSE TO PROPOSED SITE GT19 (LAND ADJACENT SHELL PETROL FILLING STATION, BIRMINGHAM ROAD, BUDBROOKE, WARWICK)

Various arguments have been proposed by Hampton Magna Residents' Association to assist me in formulating my response. Having considered these arguments and the Consultation Documents and the criteria for responses, I wish the following to be considered as my own personal submission on the subject.

Criterion: Impact on the green belt

Site GT19 is in the Green Belt. Of the five preferred option sites currently shortlisted it is the only one in the Green Belt. The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt Land should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

On 1 July 2013, in his written statement to Parliament, Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister stated:
"Our policy document planning policy for traveller sites was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development ... .

... it has become apparent that, in some cases, the green belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.

The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the green belt."

This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his 17 January 2014 statement:
"The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt."

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states:
"Policy E: Traveller Sites in Green Belt
14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very exceptional circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development"

WDC has not shown very exceptional circumstances exist for including GT 19 in the list of preferred sites. This contravenes government policy.

The Consultation Document merely states that previous development has been permitted on the proposed site but it is equally the case that planning permission has also been refused due to its impact on the Green Belt.

In addition, the Green Belt argument was used against Kite's Nest site being a gypsy and traveller site. It is less than a mile away and the sites are in several aspects similar, therefore this argument applies equally if not more so to Site GT 19. To oppose the Kites Nest site on the grounds of impact on Green Belt and propose GT19 site when on Green Belt land would also show a lack of consistency in WDC's appraising of sites with similar issues.

The Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal stated:
"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."

Impact on the Green Belt should alone be a sufficient ground for refusal.

Criterion: Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)

The owner of the land at site GT19, Robert Butler, does not want to sell it
for a Traveller and Gypsy site. Therefore a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be needed and Warwick District Council has said that a CPO could be used. This is in complete contravention of ministerial statements.

The use of a Compulsory Purchase could set up conditions for a legal challenge.

If the GT19 site were to be approved it would put the current owner's business at considerable risk and so there would also be the question of compensation for the owners business that suffered as a consequence.

Expenditure on this and a CPO would not be an appropriate use of limited financial resources of WDC.

Criterion: Proximity to other residential properties

The Kites Nest inspector 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 or 8 pitch scheme.

The same argument applies for site GT19 which is set within a group of houses 4 houses to the south and a Shell petrol station to the north followed by a further 10 houses. The provision of five pitches on this site would increase the housing density by 25 per cent and thus would change the local dynamics.

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 of the proposed GT19 site.

The Kites Nest inspector accepted that the scattered houses do form an identifiable community. Birmingham Road houses similarly form a community and therefore it could be argued that approval of site GT19 would be going against the inspector's comments which have helped WDC in the past.

PPTS Policy B, paragraph 11(a) states that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". PPTS - Policy C states that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community".

For the above reasons, selection of Site GT19 would appear to contravene these policies.

Criterion: Safe Access from the Site for vehicles and pedestrians.

Approval of the GT19 site would locate the pitches between the canal and a fast and busy road (Birmingham Road A4177). Traffic on this road is already dangerous and if proposed housing developments occur it would be set to increase. This road has had 2 fatal accidents in the last five years. There was also another serious accident in March 2014.

Movement of caravans and large vehicles in and out of the site on such a fast and busy road would not only be potentially dangerous to the proposed occupiers of the GT19 site it could increase the likelihood of more accidents to other traffic. In fact an application by the current owner for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused on the grounds of Green Belt citing the fact that the site is on a busy and fast main road (Birmingham Road A4177). To refuse the landowner's application on such grounds and then ignore them when assessing the GT19 proposal is contradictory.

Criterion: Impact on visual amenity including the visibility of the site and surrounding area.

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. Site GT19 would be similarly visible through gappy hedges.

The road is higher than the proposed site so that it would be overlooked. In the current consultation document reference is made to a habitat buffer being required to the canal side of the development. It could be argued that similar screening would be required on the road side to give the residents privacy from passing traffic and to screen off the caravans from the neighbouring houses. Screening issues for Site GT19 are even more extensive than Kites Nest.

Site GT 19 would also be visible from the canal which is a tourist attraction with its many locks and is likely to have an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. The present canal dates back to 1799 and the flight of 21 locks are well known among waterways aficionados and are a greatly valued heritage asset. There is also a great deal of narrow boat traffic, especially in the summer months, to see and use the 21 locks.

Criterion: Distance to nearby Schools ... etc.

Education would have to be provided for gypsy children and it has been suggested that children could attend Budbrooke School. Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton is also full.

Criterion: Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance

The five pitches present potential noise and disturbance for families living in close proximity.

Compliance with PPTS - health and wellbeing
It is noted that no criterion is listed to address this policy and it should be.

PPTS Policy B - Paragraph 11(e) states that local planning authorities should, ensure that their policies:
" provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development ."

The GT19 site is adjacent to a nearby a canal. There could be detrimental effects to the health and well being of young children living near the canal.

Also, to put children on a site near a potentially dangerous road does not appear to comply with this Policy.

Criterion: impact on heritage assets and setting of heritage assets

The flight of 21 locks was opened in 1799 and known as the "stairway to heaven". The tourist heritage side of Budbrooke is currently underdeveloped. Ramblers, joggers, dog walkers, cyclists, artists, photographers, bird watchers and other groups use the towpath. Then there is the river traffic. Narrow boat owners travel along the canal at weekends and for their holidays. Boats are also rented for holidays.

To locate the Gypsy and Traveller Site adjacent to this area would not enhance it but have an adverse affect and the history and heritage of the area.

We understand that the current owner of proposed GT19 site in conjunction has drawn up plans with British Waterways for a marina with a restaurant and a conference centre. This would include a heritage area with pictures and artefacts of traditional life so that local people and visitors could see and appreciate the lives of former generations.

The viability of this proposal should at least be considered in order to examine whether it could the increase the tourist industry in the area and provide employment opportunities for local people.

It would seem that encouraging tourism, preservation of heritage, and possible employment opportunities should take precedence over inappropriate use of expenditure on CPOs and potential financial compensation.


I wish this document to be regarded as my personal representations against the GT19 site.

This seems a small site which may be uneconomic and/or impractical - may also cause significant local upset?

I would like to put forward my opposition to the Proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site GT19, on the A4177 Birmingham Road.

I have tried to do this on your website, but have found it far too complicated, hence I have decided to put all my objections into an email.

Firstly, there seems to be confusion as to what is being proposed, as the Local Plan, which wants to add 70-90 houses opposite this area does not mention this additional proposition. Surely you cannot have 2 new development opposite each other at the same time? The huge combined effects of both proposed developments on local facilities are not being taken into account.

This is not a suitable area for development - the road is prone to flooding, and the traffic is already horrendous at rush-hour, trying to get to and from Warwick and Hatton Park. We have had numerous accidents on this stretch of road recently, and I know of 2 recent fatalities. My daughters travel to Aylesford School from Hatton Park on the school bus, and the bus driver was killed there recently, so we have seen at first-hand how dangerous this road is. It is ridiculous to consider adding to this danger by allowing cars to be regularly pulling in and out of this area, especially towing dangerous caravans.

It is noted that Budbrooke School is mentioned as the school that would have to take on extra children from the Traveller site. This school is not in a position to expand, as it is in special measures, so is not a suitable school to be taking on further expansion.

This land is designated Green Belt land. I was led to believe that there can only be development of this in genuine 'exceptional circumstances'. I certainly do not consider this to be such a time. There also seems to be inconsistency as to whether this land is Grade 3 agricultural land, which should be protected from development or not.

I would like to oppose the site on grounds of it's proximity to the canal. This makes it dangerous to those staying there, who are likely to have small children who could access the canal and potentially drown. Also, we enjoy walks along the canal, as do many residents in the area. We have paid a premium to live in a peaceful area near a peaceful stretch of canal, and I think this area and community will be ruined by dominating it with a Traveller site. We also do not feel it will be a safe place for our children anymore. It is also totally unfair to the community of houses that exist along the Birmingham Road adjacent to this site.

There are other suggested sites that aren't on such a visible location and a main road, why are these sites not made a priority?

I would also like to note that a planning application concerning storing caravans at this site was recently rejected by WDC and by an inspector at an appeal, so how can you then agree to designate it as a whole Gypsy & Traveller site there after that?

No information has been provided about the cost to us as tax-payers for the compulsory purchase of this land. Also, will we have to pay compensation to the poor site owner whose land will go down in value? Have WDC agreed to this - is this not contrary to the wishes of Central Government?

Why is the consultation period happening so fast? Does this not compromise the rights of residents under the new Localism Bill of 2011? It is completely inconsistent with the timescale for the provision of the site, which is stated to be as long as 5 years.

These are my oppositions to the proposed site GT19.

I live in Hatton and wish to object to the possible plans to have a Gypsy and Travellers Site on the land adjacent to the Shell garage on the Birmingham Road (Plan GT19).

It was not long ago that a very similar site within a mile of this planned site was refused the use by Gypsies and Travellers as it is in the Green belt area, surely the same rules apply to the land on the Birmingham Road.

This is a small plot of lane right in the centre of infastructure, to be viewed by many tourists along the canal locks and other popular areas in Hatton, which all bring in money to the area. I feel that this is not a suitable place and cannot see that it will bring any benefits to any of the residents or businesses within the immediate area.

It is quite an affluent area and I feel that their should be some respect for the local residents and tourist related businesses within the area.

I would also like to add, that even from the point of view of the gypies/travellers, I have always believed that they prefer to live in an area where there young children can freely roam. I feel that with a main A road to one side, the canal to the other side and a petrol station to the other, this really does not seem to be a suitable or safe place at all.

At present this land is used as a certificate location I presume it allows for upto 5 tourise caravans at any one time. There is rarely more than one caravan at this site at any one time and I believe that there is a massive difference between the occasional tourist who wishes to visit the local areas for a few days at a time as a holiday break and a planned permanent site where gypsies/travellers will live or exchange plots on a permanent basis.

I live in Hatton and wish to object to the possible plans to have a Gypsy and Travellers Site on the land adjacent to the Shell garage on the Birmingham Road (Plan GT19).

It was not long ago that a very similar site within a mile of this planned site was refused the use by Gypsies and Travellers as it is in the Green belt area, surely the same rules apply to the land on the Birmingham Road.

This is a small plot of lane right in the centre of infastructure, to be viewed by many tourists along the canal locks and other popular areas in Hatton, which all bring in money to the area. I feel that this is not a suitable place and cannot see that it will bring any benefits to any of the residents or businesses within the immediate area.

It is quite an affluent area and I feel that their should be some respect for the local residents and tourist related businesses within the area.

I would also like to add, that even from the point of view of the gypies/travellers, I have always believed that they prefer to live in an area where there young children can freely roam. I feel that with a main A road to one side, the canal to the other side and a petrol station to the other, this really does not seem to be a suitable or safe place at all.

Impact on the environment
The proposed traveller development will have a detrimental impact on the local environment - especially the green areas, which are already under threat throughout the surrounding Hatton areas with proposal for building of new houses

Access
The development will lead to increased traffic on an already very busy Birmingham road, carrying more traffic at peak times than we want to see, increasing damage to the road surfaces as well as further risk of accidents. There is already serious congestion issues on this road and difficulties /challenges pulling out of Hatton Park / Shell petrol station etc.

Local Infrastructure/services
There will be an impact on local schools as the travelling community have a right to education. All the schools locally are already full, but they will have to take the children and provide free school meals and uniforms that are paid for by us through our local taxes.

Residents report issues with garden flooding and sewage blockages on Hatton Park. A traveller site would put further demands on already problematic drainage and infrastructure situation. Rubbish collection will also cause further delays to traffic on collection days whilst the trucks stop/slow on the main road.

A traveller development by its very nature and perception, is likely to cause tension with local residents and increased demands on services such as policing etc.

Impact to local residents
It is highly likely a traveller site will have a detrimental impact on house prices in the surrounding area. Potentially, therefore leading to legal claims for compensation against the local government.

I fully anticipate that having repeatedly proven to have no respect to adhere to land laws (further evidenced by recent illegal camps) that an overuse of the area in terms of caravans/cars/people - way beyond the allocated plan capacity would be rapid and assured by the traveller community.

To give a sector of society special rights above everyone else is fundamentally wrong. It does not bring about equality but undermines it.

GT19 Birmingham Road
From Mr & Mrs Cook

Unsafe site for development, on busy road with many accidents including fatalities.
Space could not be screened off from either road or canal side, making are look untidy and ruin views of green belt countryside including Hatton Locks.
Unsafe for children next to busy road, rail line and canal. Would have to cross busy road to bus stop.
Access for service vehicles would cause issues at what is already an accident blackspot.
Who polices how many residents/vans are on the site and overspill would end up in adjacent green belt space illegally. Further points on summary:

This site is well positioned to fit the criteria above.

With regards to Public transport I believe adding bus stops to Birmingham road at this site will add to traffic congestion to an already busy road. With regards to safe access to the road, the coming and going of vehicles to a poorly sighted, accident blackspot marked stretch of road would only add risk to this route and its users. The services available on site I'm sure would be more likely driven out and not benefit from it being a Gypsy/Traveller site as I would anticipate services would be kept "in house". This site will be on a main and

In response to the consultation on " Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations" I would like to add the following points. These concentrate on the Oaklands Farm Birmingham Road Proposed site (GT19) :

1. Green Belt - it would seem wholly inappropriate to allow this development on green belt land. Development on green belt I thought was only permitted under "exceptional circumstanes" - which would not apply to Gypsies and Travellers sites. Green belt needs to be protected
2. Visual Impact - the proposed site would be clearly visible and it is on land that is close to existing housing , and runs alongside the Birmingham Road and the canal . Also the land is relatively low which would increase the visual impact.
3. Access to main road - there have been a number of accidents , some involving fatalities along this stretch of the A4177 which can be very busy - permitting access / egress from this proposed site would seem very dangerous, particularly as it would have to accommodate the entry / exit of towed slow moving long trailers.
4. Detrimental to immediate area - recent experience suggests they do not look after the place where they reside . If they were sympathetic to the neighbouring area they would not attract such bad feeling. Only recently they have been moved from Kites Nest Lane and then more recently from the public footpath opposite the Shell Garage - on all occasions they have basically trashed the place , and it has been left to others to tidy up or repair any damage. I believe that the stretch of canal and canal towpath could suffer the same detrimental impact , and there is a risk that their refuse would be left alongside , if not in the canal. This is a popular area for walkers , and I believe it would discourage walkers using this stretch , both as it would be unsightly and passers-by may feel threatened or intimidated

This site should not be considered for Gypsies and Travellers because IT IS GREEN BELT LAND (it is the only site in the preferred options which is Green Belt).

It is inappropriately located as access to the road network will not be easy as the Birmingham Road is a very busy road. Safe access onto and off the site for vehicles and pedestrians will be difficult (especially during rush hour). Furthermore, the road noise and speed/volume of traffic will not be good for potential residents.

The impact on the character of the landscape will be adversely affected - the visual impact on visitors to the town will not be good. Furthermore, the area is prone to flooding (in recent months the Birmingham Road has flooded multiple times).

The impact of land contamination is probable (as we have witnesses recently with gypsies at Kite's Nest and on the lane opposite the Shell Garage, Birmingham Road). Concerns regarding the impact to wildlife (with the site being next to the Grand Union Canal) and possible dumping of rubbish into the canal.

The size of the site is very small and is not really suitable for the number of pitches proposed.

This site should not be considered for Gypsies and Travellers because IT IS GREEN BELT LAND (it is the only site in the preferred options which is Green Belt).

It is inappropriately located as access to the road network will not be easy as the Birmingham Road is a very busy road. Safe access onto and off the proposed site for vehicles and pedestrians will be difficult (especially during rush hour). Pedestrians in particular would have to cross the busy main road as there are no pavements which approach the proposed site. Furthermore, the road noise and speed/volume of traffic will not be good for potential residents in mobile homes.

The impact on the character of the landscape will be adversely affected - the visual impact on visitors to the town will not be good. Furthermore, the area is prone to flooding (in recent months the Birmingham Road has flooded multiple times).

The impact of land contamination is probable (as we have witnesses recently with gypsies at Kite's Nest and on the lane opposite the Shell Garage, Birmingham Road). Concerns regarding the impact to wildlife (with the site being next to the Grand Union Canal) and possible dumping of rubbish into the canal.

The size of the site is very small and is not suitable for the number of pitches proposed.

There is nowhere for children to play on the proposed site, nearest public space would mean they would need to cross a busy main road.

Any existing site that already caters for travellers is surely better than funding a new permanent site which the travellers may just up sticks from if they don't like. It happens.

I object to the inclusion of the Birmingham road site as a preferred option. I believe that the criteria of 'Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment' and 'Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.' are far from satisfied in this instance and the locally significant natural environment along the canal would be adversely affected by such a development. The site is Green Belt land and development of an alternative site that is not in the Green Belt would be preferential in my opinion. I would also be very dismayed if this site were to go ahead on the basis that compulsory purchase orders are necessary, over-riding not only the local residents views but also that of the land owner, and would see this as a very negative action.

This site is too small to be economic and is probably very unpopular with residents.

I object on the following grounds,
1/ the scheme is contrary to the recommendations of the NPPF. The NPPF retains a presumption of protecting and preserving the green belt. As this site is green belt land, any form of development is not acceptable
2/ a precedent has been set by the Government minister Eric Pickles and the Planning Inspector refusing retrospective planning consent for a Travellers Site on Green Belt land at Kite's Nest Lane, Beausale. Logically the grounds of refusal to permit retrospective planning permission for green belt development for a travellers site in Beausale equally and fully apply to the site on Birmingham Road Budbrooke
3/ Blight. There is a risk that granting consent may give rise to Blight Notices being served on the council in the future if nearby property owners on Birmingham Road are unable to sell their properties. At a time of continued austerity and severe cuts to council budgets and spending, where will the funding come from to pay the Blight notices.
4/ It has been stated that a number of previous and alternative development proposals for this site have been refused planning permission.
5/ The current application for this section of Oaklands Farm is only for a portion of the entire landholding for Oaklands Farm. There is a real risk that when the current owners wish to sell the remainder of the site in the open market there will be a Blight situation arising compelling the council to purchase the remainder of the site at full market value. This in turn raises the risk that a future higher density of pitches will be created far in excess of what is currently being proposed.
6/ Health and safety, the busy road creates noise and traffic pollution and the standing water of the canal can create waterborne infection that could affect the occupiers of caravans which are less robust than housing.
Additionally if there was a major fire at the nearby petrol filling station caravans are far more vulnerable than housing leading to a real risk of harm to life.
7/ Highway Access for access and egress from the site on what is already a busy road will be more dangerous with large vehicles with caravans accessing and leaving the site and creating congestion
8/ I am opposed to any type of development on Green Belt land. Green belt status is to protect green open spaces and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl.

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

I support this site as it has good road access.

This travellers site would be built on Green belt land which should not be used for travellers sites. The travellers site would dominate the local community on the Birmingham road in the near vicinity, Policy B of the Planning Policy for Travellers sites states that policies should
"promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community"
Policy D says that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the
nearest settled community". There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of
community amongst the occupiers of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The local schools are full

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. 2
months 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 with my wife 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 calor 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.

The site is too close to the canal, which is a busy and beautiful spot for walkers and families. Concerned about the site's impact on the canal and users of the canal.

Facilities are available. The site is already partly developed and has ability to be connected to the mains.

There is capacity at local school and required infrastructure. There is access to gp and good public transport.

It would be a suitable site which would not need to use compulsory purchase which would make it quicker and more cost effective to deliver.

This site is unsuitable as it fails many of the suitablity criteria:-
Poor access to GP's, schools and public transport
Site floods from Hatton Park run off
Site adjoins A4177 at an accident blackspot and will suffer excessive noise and air pollution
Site adjoins the historic Hatton Locks which are a major tourist attraction and important for local wildlife to connect to Smith's Covert- similiar sites were rejected in the Local Plan.
Site would jeopardise the existing and proposd business development at Oaklands Farm.
Site would contribute to extending the A4177 ribbon develoment in the green belt contrary to Council objectives and will be oppose the approved Local Plan development for Hatton Park.

I object to site GT19 for the following reasons:

1) The site will place additional pressures on the road network (A4177 - which currently cannot cope with the volume of traffic)
2) The site will not be in keeping with the area. Much has been done to promote Hatton Locks as a visitor attraction and this site would not be of benefit to that
3) It is not in close proximity to any local services
4) The site would have a direct adverse impact on the current landowner and prevent him from expanding his business (for which planning consent has already been granted)

The site is in the Green Belt on a well-known accident black spot. It is in full view of the A4177 and would have a negative impact on tourism. It is in the middle of a small tight-knit community which would be proportionally outnumbered by it and would feel threatened by it. It is near deep water, a fast dangerous road and near a railway line, which would endanger young and old residents. It would negatively impact wildlife, local ecology & farm land. It would blight the nearby "Stairway to Heaven Lock Flight", which is of great historic importance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Site Size

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


Conclusion

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

Objection to Gypsy and Traveller Site Ref GT19 Birmingham Road

I object to this proposal on the following grounds.

1. The site is Green Belt, and this proposal is contrary to that designation.
2. Development of this site would harm the character of the area. Although parts of this site have been used for caravans in the past, these have been temporary holiday caravans rather than permanent pitches with the buildings, vehicles, work vans etc which can be anticipated with this proposal.
3. Development of this site would have an adverse impact on the nationally and locally important historic Hatton Locks and canal, which border the site.
4. The site would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community; it is highly visible to all local residents as well as to visitors adjacent to the main access road to all of the local houses.
5. The site is adjacent to a busy main road, which is already extremely congested, and on which there have recently been fatal accidents very close to the proposed site; this development would increase the risk of further such fatalities.
6. It would place undue pressure on local GP services and schools; the local primary school is already oversubscribed to the extent that some classes are held in corridors.
7. There is a very high risk of flooding. On several occasions each year, rain runoff from Hatton Park floods the road so that at least one carriageway is impassable; this is bound to affect the proposed site adjacent to the road.

Objection to Gypsy and Traveller Site Ref GT19 Birmingham Road

I object to this proposal on the following grounds.

1. The site is Green Belt, and this proposal is contrary to that designation.
2. Development of this site would harm the character of the area. Although parts of this site have been used for caravans in the past, these have been temporary holiday caravans rather than permanent pitches with the buildings, vehicles, work vans etc which can be anticipated with this proposal.
3. Development of this site would have an adverse impact on the nationally and locally important historic Hatton Locks and canal, which border the site.
4. The site would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community; it is highly visible to all local residents as well as to visitors adjacent to the main access road to all of the local houses.
5. The site is adjacent to a busy main road, which is already extremely congested, and on which there have recently been fatal accidents very close to the proposed site; this development would increase the risk of further such fatalities.
6. It would place undue pressure on local GP services and schools; the local primary school is already oversubscribed to the extent that some classes are held in corridors.
7. There is a very high risk of flooding. On several occasions each year, rain runoff from Hatton Park floods the road so that at least one carriageway is impassable; this is bound to affect the proposed site adjacent to the road.