This really seemsto tick all the boxes as it has already been deemed suitable for a similar development

This area is opposite Castle Park, therefore a traveller site in this location will visually adversely affect the historic centre of Warwick. Also of concern is the historic approach to Warwick, the appearance and atmosphere of which would be significantly compromised should this site be used. Traffic on Banbury Road is very busy at rush hour, and adding to this traffic flow would be highly inadvisable. While the 'pedestrian access' to Warwick is mentioned in this proposal, this access is in fact limited to a very narrow path adjacent to a very busy road. Pollution of the watercourse at Tach Brook would be a concern also as there is no mains sewage to this site. Overall I believe the development of this site as a traveller site would be highly detrimental to he local area and an inappropriate placement of is facility.

This site is not appropriate for a Gypsy / Traveller site for the following reasons:

There is no mains sewage therefore waste disposal would be a problem.

There are no schools or GP surgeries in the area.

Banbury Road is the one of the main approaches to historic Warwick. It is likely that a site in this location would have a negative impact on the natural and historic aspect of the town of Warwick, particularly given the proximity to Castle Park.

There is potential for noise / disturbance to Castle Park, Warwick Technology Park and local residents.

We write with regard to the identification of Brookside Willows on Banbury Road as a potential site for gypsies. This location appears entirely inappropriate, being next door to a Grade 1 Listed Parkland and a tourist route into Warwick. The site also has no amenities or infrastructure or public transport available to it.

We also understand it is proposed that the land opposite the entry to our property on the Barford Road. Aside from not wanting such a site to be opposite our entrance (which is in regular use every day) again this seems an inappropriate site. There are no facilities or amenities available, no public transport, and we understand the site is also part required to be used for grazing as it was previously a rubbish dump. It is also a very busy road with traffic often passing at 70mph and there are no footpaths available.

Please let us know if there are other avenues we should be pursuing in order to object to these proposals.

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

I object to the use of Brooks Willow caravan site as a G & T site. Although the owner (who he?) has paid for the turn right in the main road to facilitate turning circle of vehicle plus caravan, this land is unsuitable for even a touring site. Currently (having driven past it this morning) it is storing large sacks of something very heavy, there are heavy duty lights there at night sometimes. What is the owner storing on site? Currently Warwick Castle park Trustees have objected because of the pollution which flows from Tach Brook though to New Waters in Warwick Castle Park. This is heavy metal and cadmium. What else will leach out of the soil? Cllr Caborn dismisses these fears as groundless because gipsy caravans can be on floating (ie temporary not permanent) foundations. This is invalid because they demand permanent brick houses for showers, toilets & washing machines.

PROPOSED GYPSY SITE IN BANBURY ROAD (THE WILLOWS)

We wish to object to this proposal for the following reasons.

TOXIC CONTAMINATION

For many years the site was used as an unrestricted public tip. Additionally, the previous owners of the Castle Park - Gladedale Ltd - undertook a survey of the New Waters and found that they are severely contaminated by many toxic substances including cadmium and lead. It was said to be dangerous to dredge it because of the high levels of contamination and the difficulty of finding any site that the dredged material could be safely taken to.
The New Waters is fed by the Tach Brook which flows through the proposed Gypsy site. The toxic substances had come down from an earlier factory site upstream and it follows that the whole of this stream bed is also probably contaminated. This means that the proposed Willows site could also be dangerously contaminated both by the contents of the tip and by the Tach Brook..
Two things occur to us:
(1) The Council could be held responsible for giving gypsies (or anyone) a piece of land to live on that is known to be contaminated and
(2) While we have no objection in principle to permanent gypsy sites, should the Council go ahead with this site and later there is proved to be serious health issues arising, the Council might be liable.

DAMAGE TO CASTLE PARK

Additionally you will be aware that the Castle Park is a Grade 1 Listed Park, and as such the entire park is an important and historic asset for the entire community. The travelling population have not had a good record of environmental protection, and we are concerned that the woodland in the Castle Park opposite the Willows will become a playground for children and an ongoing source of firewood, causing growing environmental damage. The children would in any case have to cross a very busy road with traffic travelling at high speed.
In the interest of protecting our historic heritage, the Willows is a most unsuitable site.

Land already in use by C&C club so disruption will be inevitable

I wish to comment on the options for sites for gypsies and travellers. I object to the site by Banbury Road, Warwick, which has previously been regarded as unsuitable. The ground itself is unsuitable on health and safety grounds. And the location is too close to a build-up area.

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

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

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

This is an unsuitable site in a sensitive location close to Castle Park - it will totally blight an emerging and valuable tourist business which will accommodate 65 holiday caravans. It is also remote from all facilities and services, despite pedestrian access.

Further to visiting the public drop in session & exhibition at the Bishops Tachbrook Sports & Social Club concerning the proposed sites for gypsy & travellers, we would like to object to the following suggested site - GT05.

Our main reasons for objection are -

1. Village's infrastructure unsuitable to cater for further increased population.
2. Road network at proposed site already dangerous & increased traffic onto the Banbury Road
would cause further increased hazards.
3. Appearance of the village & it's local area would be severely altered.
4. Potential increase to crime rates in the village, which is currently very low.
5. Effect of such a site to local house prices (Internet research shows that there is a negative
impact to home valuations when traveller sites are situated nearby).
6. Effect of such a site to local home insurance premiums (Internet research shows that there is
an increase to insurance costs when traveller sites are situated nearby).

From the Preferred Options list, we would like to suggest the following site preferable - GTalt01.

As detailed, this site already has planning permission for a potential caravan site.
This site is situated between Bishops Tachbrook, Barford and Warwick (thus having a less severe impact on any of the individual communities).
It is also near local amenities without causing too much disruption to any the local population.

We hope you can appreciate our points and concerns. We look forward to hearing from you.

This site is ideal as it already has planning permission for a holiday caravan site. It is neither Green Belt nor agricultural land as it was previously a landfill site. It has also been researched for contaminants and is already partially developed. Although opposite Castle Park the visual impact is negligible as it is already well screened by trees with scope for further screening if necessary. There is pedestrian access and good access to the road network. Schools and GP surgeries are accessible in Warwick and also in the areas identified for development in the Draft Local Plan.

This does not seem a good choice - a busy road on a main tourist route into Warwick - also impacting on Warwick Castle Park. It will also damage or stop an important emerging tourist business to provide 65 caravan pitches for visitors and have high associated implementation costs.

Ideal location, well screened.
Infrastructure already in place
Easy access to Warwick
Planning in place for caravan site anyway so minimal difference.
More suitable than the other alternatives.

due to its very close proximity to warwick town centre and less than a mile from Warwick castle, under P03 Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)the site currently has planning permission for a tourist caravan site. this would be an ideal use due to its immediate proximity to the heart of Warwick and its central historical attractions. a tourist caravan site would add to tourism and the local economy. converting into a Gypsy/ traveller site would lose this valuable resource.

Under P03; Deliverability of the site and associated infrastructure requirements ; current planning applications to building residential properties in this area have been repeatedly turned down in part due to increased demand on resources, and any plans submitted now must include provision of additional schools and surgeries. This would not be possible on this site, and so would not be suitable as a permanent/ semi-permanent dwelling.

under p03;Impact on heritage assets and the settings of heritage assets; the site is directly opposite a heritage asset forming part of the castle estate, and neighbours a 14th century hamlet (The Asps). The impact on these areas would be significantly detrimental, and this has been in part responsible for the refusal of other residential planning applications in this particular area.

under p03 Impact on Landscape character; which can be defined as "The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape", a gypsy/ traveller site would absolutely oppose this definition. Whilst a tourist caravan site would be consistent with a historic town and be welcomed, a gypsy/ traveller site so close to the heart of Warwick would dramatically clash with the essential character.

under p03; Impact on visual amenity including the visibility and character of the site and surrounding area, there is limited screening possible from Banbury road, whilst the current tree line offers little or no cover for a significant portion of the year. As a tourist caravan park, the owners would have an essential interest in ensuring the highest standard of presentation at all times, with ongoing and comprehensive landscaping and maintenance. historically, traveller sites are often renowned for their damaging impact on the local character and visibility.

under the governmental planning policy for traveller sites; 'When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community.' In this instance, the nearest settled community is a 6 residence hamlet. This would be completely dominated by even a small gypsy/ traveller site.

I support this site as it is well screened from the road, much of the required infrastructure in place and there could be easy access to local amenities on foot at a small cost

Poor choice - it will damage an emerging tourist businesss and blight the setting of Warwick Castle Park on a main approach to the town.

This site is not in the Green Belt, is not agricultural land and already has planning permission for use as a holiday caravan site, so no unknown hazards from previous use for landfill. Appropriate access (turning lane to highway standards) from Banbury Road already exists and it's close to primary road network. It has access to facilities and services as on edge of urban area, there is pedestrian access, no drainage issues, and the site is well screened. The wildlife corridor along Tach Brook should be regarded as important.

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

I support this site as the infrastructure is in place and it is not near any residential areas.

This site is right next to Castle Park and opposite one of the largest Heronary sites in the country. It is also on teh main southern access road into Warwick and is on top of a known rubbish tip that still vents methane. This is patently not a healthy site for anyone to use and goes against the councils own stipulations.

GTalt01 Brookside Willows Banbury Road This site is well located and
screened from the Banbury Road. The infrastructure is already in place and
it is close to local amenities in Warwick.
Concerns around this being a busy communter road which would need to be considered

Reasonable size site that has already got planning permission for similar use, site satisfies majority of the above criteria.

This would appear to be an excellent choice. It already has safe access from the road, has facilities and would be very quick and easy to make into a suitable site. The site is well screened and there is convenient access to Warwick, leamington and surrounding areas with all amenities including schools, gps, which have capacity to absorb extra people.
The site is not close to any existing businesses which would be adversely affected. It also has the capacity to integrate any gypsy/traveller businesses which could run from the site.
This site doesn't appear to be prone to flooding.

In support. Closer to urban area for health etc. Smaller and more manageable site.

More suitable and already has planning for a caravan site.

This site is more suitable than others due to its location, screening from the main road, existing planning permission and infrastructure. It is assumed that the existing planning permission means that vehicular access issues must have been accounted for and approved.

This site was built as a caravan park and has lain dormant for several years. All the accesses have been completed including turnings etc. This therefore seems to make sense as a number one choice

My Parish Council have studied this in depth and this is their recommendation, I trust them