This site has already been refused planning permission as a Traveller site. The previous arguments made about its unsuitability still apply - access / drainage / greenbelt etc.

Impact on Green Belt
Separated from Warwick by a relatively small area of agricultural land, Hampton on the Hill and Hampton Magna are located within Green Belt land. However, this status is already threatened by a current proposal for Hampton Magna to expand by 150 homes virtually conjoining Hampton Magna, on the northeastern edge, to Warwick. Whilst on the southern edge of Warwick, the expansion of Chase Meadow out to the west, has encroached upon the open space between Hampton on the Hill and Warwick. This incremental growth 'pincer movement' threatens the lifestyle and ecological credentials of green belt boundaries which are crucial for both the environment and the preservation of the rural life around our small village. Developmental plans of any kind on this piece of land would further increase the potential for increment growth
to merge our village with the 'built up' town of Warwick.

Proximity to residential properties and Impact on land contamination, noise and disturbance.
The westerly aspect of the proposed site would be adjacent to the local community allotments; a small area bordered, on the opposite side, by residential properties. Village residents' values are demonstrated by their financial and emotional investment, their permanence and their commitment to the preservation of the rural community. Their lifestyles are marked by quiet, sedentary and countryside pursuits. The lifestyles and cultural norms of the community for whom the land is sought are not renowned for quiet, sedentary activity or countryside pursuits. Whereas noise, disturbance, unruly and sometimes squalid conditions tend to be more commonly recognized features. Moreover, their 'travelling' tradition and practice belies disregard for the concept of an established community and an unlikely empathy for the residents of such a place. To find anything of common interest between the two lifestyles /cultures could not be more difficult. Inflicting a group of neighbours with such a divergent lifestyle on the established community would be cruel, divisive and highly contentious. It is very likely that there would be conflict, disputes, suspicions and discriminatory allegations. Harmonious coexistence is highly improbable and outcomes could have a significant impact on the local authority services.



Availability of the site
There is an injunction against development on this land. It was placed there in May 2010 by Warwick District Council, in perpetuity, in response to planning applications made by the current landowner. It is therefore, understandably, an expectation that this tool for local control will not be sacrificed to government directives for which the local community has no appetite. If the reasons for the injunction were valid in 2010 they are even stronger now that the expansion of Hampton Magna is a serious possibility.

Impact on visual amenity including the visibility and character of the site and surrounding area and Impact on Landscape character
Entering or passing the village of Hampton on the Hill on the Henley Road from Warwick, this field is clearly in a prominent elevated position; a focal point for the motorist or walker. The native flora provides a natural and dappled glimpse of the field beyond. Caravan pitches and their associated artifacts would not enhance the aesthetics of the environment and the only way they could be screened from the road is with a solid material; a fence or a wall. Either would be out of keeping with the character of the site and both of these would be an extreme blight on what is without doubt a naturally beautiful aspect of the local landscape.

Safe access to and from the site for vehicles and pedestrians. Availability and Deliverability
In the Local Plan March 2014 document 'achievable' is the description of access to and from the site for vehicles. This is, at best, an audacious assessment. The road is narrow, traffic already has to slow down to pass safely. The road is subject to heavy 'run off' from the excess water accumulating in this field and also from the field on the opposite side of the road. Importantly, there is a ditch running parallel alongside and between the road and the field. It would have to be bridged to a standard suitable for heavy vehicles; a very expensive adjustment. Alternative access to and from the site, on the Henley Road, would be at the mercy of very fast traffic and, in particular, approaching from the easterly direction would involve a right turn crossing that fast traffic to an opening located on an incline on a curved road. Additionally, there are powerful electricity lines crossing the field overhead and end to end.

In conclusion, whilst the current owner may well be keen to make this land available, probably because his own efforts to develop it have been blighted and unprofitable due to rejected planning applications and a perpetual injunction, I strongly disagree with the Local Plan's author that this makes it available AND deliverable. How can that be? Not only is it neither of these things, it fails to meet a number of criteria required to make it suitable.

We are writing on behalf of the residents of Hampton-on-the-Hill (HOTHRA) to OBJECT very strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The principal reasons being that a section of it has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council (WDC) and a DISMISSAL by the Planning Inspectorate for a site measuring 0.1 hectare whereas site GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares; sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant to GTalt03 and even more valid with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.
In each case Budbrooke Parish Council (BPC) has been fully supportive of the local residents in objecting to the applications and helped with the funding of a Highways Specialist (David Tucker Associates) and Planning Consultant (Stoneleigh Planning) to thoroughly investigate all the issues involved.
In 2009 the landowner (Mr Maloney) applied for planning approval for 'change of use of land to a caravan site for the occupation by a gypsy family.....; Application W 09/0157. The Case Officer (Penny Butler) presented the case to the Planning Committee (PC) because of '.....the high level of public interest in the case'. At the PC meeting our Budbrooke Ward Councillor - Mr Alan Rhead - spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that there were no very special circumstances to allow the development in the Green Belt and that the interests of the settled community and their human rights needed to be respected.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 17 June 2009
The landowner then appealed that decision and it was referred to the Planning Inspectorate. Bristol. Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/A/09/2107108. There was a hearing on 3 November 2009 followed by a site visit on the same day. (WDC was represented by Dave Edmonds - Appeals Officer).
The Inspector DISMISSED the Appeal on 27 November 2009.
The principal reasons being - inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The WDC then issued an Injunction Order (Claim No. OBM30254) on Miles Maloney and Persons Unknown on 27 May 2010. It applies to the whole site of 1.66 hectares and forbids '....the siting of touring caravans/mobile homes and/or using the Land for residential development including the occupation of caravans/mobile homes for residential purposes .......'. It goes on to state that 'The Defendants be forbidden from undertaking any development on the Land including the laying of hardcore and creation of hardstanding and/or access roads, the erection of fencing, breaking new pedestrian/vehicular entry points onto the land and the construction of ancillary buildings'.
The same landowner made a further application on 17 December 2010 - Application number W10/1221. This time for the 'proposed conversion of a barn into a dwelling......'. Once again the Case Officer (Penny Butler) referred the case to the PC this time at the request of Councillor Sawdon who spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that the application was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 22 February 2011
These REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL concerned a single dwelling in 0.1 hectare. The current consultation is for fifteen pitches in 1.66 hectares. The increased numbers of people and their vehicle movements on and off the Henley Road will greatly increase the highways safety issues.
The statement on page 60 of the consultation document refers to "Access is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays". We have consulted the WCC Highways engineer who looked at that access as a possibility at the request of the WDC. He has told us that Hampton Road access 'is not a viable option' and considers that only access from the Henley Road is advised. Apart from the WCC Highways opinion, it should be remembered that the Henley Road has a speed restriction of 50 mph whereas the Hampton Road adjacent to the site is derestricted.
The statement goes on that "The landowner is very keen to promote site for this use making it available and deliverable". This is a surprising statement since it should be remembered that during the earlier applications the landowner was known to shun his fellow travellers ".....they do not get on with other Irish Travellers... and would not wish to be associated .........." (WDC Key Issues, 17 June 2009). Also, he claimed that he was unable to co-exist with fellow Gypsies and Travellers, hence his need for a separate site (source - the Warwickshire Gypsy and Traveller Support Service). For him to now offer the land for their use seems a contradiction of his position and could be regarded as a cynical act.
It should also be remembered that he has been trying unsuccessfully to sell the land since early 2013 in spite of having received offers in excess of the market value (at auction in John Shepherd Offices, Hockley Heath - 19 March 2013). This, together with his inability to co-exist with his kind must raise doubts about the sustainability of his offer.
The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site will cause much unrest within the village of Hampton-on-the- Hill with a population of some two hundred, many of whom are retired including thirty single people living alone. Fifteen pitches could amount to an additional forty people - a twenty percent increase - which would give an imbalance to the settled community in the Village. Their interests and that of the wider settled community must have their human rights respected.
In the consultation document, site GT13 - Kites Nest Lane, Beausale - has been given a Red classification with the accompanying comment - "Unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller site has been the subject of retrospective planning applications and two subsequent appeals, both dismissed".
The same principle should also apply in the case of GTalt03 which is considerably larger than the site which has been the subject of three rejections. and which also carries an Injunction for the whole site. Similarly, the site should be given a Red classification.
The circumstances that led to the two REFUSALS, the INJUNCTION and the DISMISSAL in 2009, 2010 and 2011 are relevant and valid today. Particularly so for a site sixteen times the size which will have a greater impact on the landscape character; the visual amenity of the surrounding area, land contamination, noise and other disturbances. Given its prominent position it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate these points.
We therefore request that site GTalt03 be reclassified as a Red site and removed from any further consideration in this consultation.

I wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very
authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC
Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.

We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

I wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very
authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC
Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.

We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation

I wish to register a very strong objection to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

A proposal for a site in Hampton on the Hill was dismissed by the Planning Officer in 2009 and following that WDC took out an injunction to prevent development. The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.

I request that site GT alt03 be reclassified as a RED SITE and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

I wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.
We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

I wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.

We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation

We wish to register a very strong objection to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers'- dated March 2014.

This site is immediately adjacent our village of Hampton on the Hill and consequently totally unsuitable for such a site.

During the past 18 months an investment I have at Spartan Close, Tachbrook Park ,Warwick has been constantly and seriously disrupted by the children of Gypsies / Travellers. Last month they arrived again this time the adults put a chain around the concrete barriers and moved them aside to gain access. A concrete bollard has also been broken off at its base. This problem has plagued the business to such a degree that the business has now been forced to take action to relocate away from Warwick .This is an advanced technology business engaged in the 3D Printing of Titanium Components for many customers in the Midlands including all the Formula 1 Teams. The result is a loss of highly skilled employment from our Warwick as direct consequence of the action of Gypsies /Travellers uncontrolled children being allowed to live unlawfully or lawfully near factories ,offices or dwellings.

To continue, the site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead 2009 and Clare Sawdon 2011 supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee Meetings. The site has been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

''The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.''

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very Authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore ,HAMPTON ON THE HILL is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Gypsies/ Traveller Site.

We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

We wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning refusals by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011.
On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their objections by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.
The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today.
It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that refused those applications.
Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.

We therefore request that the site GTalt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

Statement by John Lock 20 April 2014
LOCAL PLAN - Sites for Gypsies and Travellers - March 2014

I am writing as a resident of Hampton-on-the-Hill to OBJECT very strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The principal reasons are that (1) a section of it has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council (WDC) and (2) a DISMISSAL by the Planning Inspectorate for a site measuring 0.1 hectare whereas site GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares; sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant to GTalt03 and even more valid with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.

In each case Budbrooke Parish Council (BPC) has been fully supportive of the local residents in objecting to the applications and helped with the funding of a Highways Specialist (David Tucker Associates) and Planning Consultant (Stoneleigh Planning) to thoroughly investigate all the issues involved.

In 2009 the landowner (Mr Maloney) applied for planning approval for 'change of use of land to a caravan site for the occupation by a gypsy family.....; Application W 09/0157. The Case Officer (Penny Butler) presented the case to the Planning Committee (PC) because of '.....the high level of public interest in the case'. At the PC meeting our Budbrooke Ward Councillor - Mr Alan Rhead - spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that there were no very special circumstances to allow the development in the Green Belt and that the interests of the settled community and their human rights needed to be respected.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 17 June 2009

The landowner then appealed that decision and it was referred to the Planning Inspectorate. Bristol. Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/A/09/2107108. There was a hearing on 3 November 2009 followed by a site visit on the same day. (WDC was represented by Dave Edmonds - Appeals Officer).
The Inspector DISMISSED the Appeal on 27 November 2009.
The principal reasons being - inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.

The WDC then issued an Injunction Order (Claim No. OBM30254) on Miles Maloney and Persons Unknown on 27 May 2010. It applies to the whole site of 1.66 hectares and forbids '....the siting of touring caravans/mobile homes and/or using the Land for residential development including the occupation of caravans/mobile homes for residential purposes .......'. It goes on to state that 'The Defendants be forbidden from undertaking any development on the Land including the laying of hardcore and creation of hardstanding and/or access roads, the erection of fencing, breaking new pedestrian/vehicular entry points onto the land and the construction of ancillary buildings'.

The same landowner made a further application on 17 December 2010 - Application number W10/1221. This time for the 'proposed conversion of a barn into a dwelling......'. Once again the Case Officer (Penny Butler) referred the case to the PC this time at the request of Councillor Sawdon who spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that the application was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 22 February 2011
These REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL concerned a single dwelling in 0.1 hectare. The current consultation is for fifteen pitches in 1.66 hectares. The increased numbers of people and their vehicle movements on and off the Henley Road will greatly increase the highways safety issues.
The statement on page 60 of the consultation document refers to "Access is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays". We have consulted the WCC Highways engineer who looked at that access as a possibility at the request of the WDC. He has told us that Hampton Road access 'is not a viable option' and considers that only access from the Henley Road is advised. Apart from the WCC Highways opinion, it should be remembered that the Henley Road has a speed restriction of 50 mph whereas the Hampton Road adjacent to the site is derestricted.

The statement goes on that "The landowner is very keen to promote site for this use making it available and deliverable". This is a surprising statement since it should be remembered that during the earlier applications the landowner was known to shun his fellow travellers ".....they do not get on with other Irish Travellers... and would not wish to be associated .........." (WDC Key Issues, 17 June 2009). Also, he claimed that he was unable to co-exist with fellow Gypsies and Travellers, hence his need for a separate site (source - the Warwickshire Gypsy and Traveller Support Service). For him to now offer the land for their use seems a contradiction of his position and could be regarded as a cynical act.

It should also be remembered that he has been trying unsuccessfully to sell the land since early 2013 in spite of having received offers in excess of the market value (at auction in John Shepherd Offices, Hockley Heath - 19 March 2013). This, together with his inability to co-exist with his kind must raise doubts about the sustainability of his offer.

The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site will cause much unrest within the village of Hampton-on-the- Hill with a population of some two hundred, many of whom are retired including thirty single people living alone. Fifteen pitches could amount to an additional forty people - a twenty percent increase - which would give an imbalance to the settled community in the Village. Their interests and that of the wider settled community must have their human rights respected.

In the consultation document, site GT13 - Kites Nest Lane, Beausale - has been given a Red classification with the accompanying comment - "Unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller site has been the subject of retrospective planning applications and two subsequent appeals, both dismissed".
The same principle should also apply in the case of GTalt03 which is considerably larger than the site which has been the subject of three rejections. and which also carries an Injunction for the whole site. Similarly, the site should be given a Red classification.

The circumstances that led to the two REFUSALS, the INJUNCTION and the DISMISSAL in 2009, 2010 and 2011 are relevant and valid today. Particularly so for a site sixteen times the size which will have a greater impact on the landscape character; the visual amenity of the surrounding area, land contamination, noise and other disturbances. Given its prominent position it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate these points.

I therefore request that site GTalt03 be reclassified as a Red site and removed from any further consideration in this consultation.

I am writing as a resident of Hampton-on-the-Hill to OBJECT very strongly to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in this consultation document as a possible site for Gypsies and Travellers. The principal reasons are that (1) a section of it has been the subject of two planning application REFUSALS by the Warwick District Council (WDC) and (2) a DISMISSAL by the
Planning Inspectorate for a site measuring 0.1 hectare whereas site GTalt03 is 1.66 hectares; sixteen times larger. The reasons given for these REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL are relevant to GTalt03 and even more valid with the increased site size and greater numbers of people.
In each case Budbrooke Parish Council (BPC) has been fully supportive of the local residents in objecting to the applications and helped with the funding of a Highways Specialist (David Tucker Associates) and Planning
Consultant (Stoneleigh Planning) to thoroughly investigate all the issues
involved.
In 2009 the landowner (Mr Maloney) applied for planning approval for
'change of use of land to a caravan site for the occupation by a gypsy
family.....; Application W 09/0157. The Case Officer (Penny Butler)
presented the case to the Planning Committee (PC) because of '.....the
high level of public interest in the case'. At the PC meeting our
Budbrooke Ward Councillor - Mr Alan Rhead - spoke on behalf of the
residents and stated that there were no very special circumstances to allow the development in the Green Belt and that the interests of the settled community and their human rights needed to be respected.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 17 June 2009
The landowner then appealed that decision and it was referred to the
Planning Inspectorate. Bristol. Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/A/09/2107108. There was a hearing on 3 November 2009 followed by a site visit on the same day.
(WDC was represented by Dave Edmonds - Appeals Officer).
The Inspector DISMISSED the Appeal on 27 November 2009.
The principal reasons being - inappropriate development in the Green Belt
and Highways Safety.
The WDC then issued an Injunction Order (Claim No. OBM30254) on Miles Maloney and Persons Unknown on 27 May 2010. It applies to the whole site of 1.66 hectares and forbids '....the siting of touring caravans/mobile homes and/or using the Land for residential development including the occupation of caravans/mobile homes for residential purposes .......'. It
goes on to state that 'The Defendants be forbidden from undertaking any
development on the Land including the laying of hardcore and creation of
hardstanding and/or access roads, the erection of fencing, breaking new
pedestrian/vehicular entry points onto the land and the construction of
ancillary buildings'.
The same landowner made a further application on 17 December 2010 -
Application number W10/1221. This time for the 'proposed conversion of a barn into a dwelling......'. Once again the Case Officer (Penny Butler)
referred the case to the PC this time at the request of Councillor Sawdon
who spoke on behalf of the residents and stated that the application was
inappropriate development in the Green Belt and Highways Safety.
The Planning Committee REFUSED the application in their meeting on 22 February 2011
These REFUSALS and the DISMISSAL concerned a single dwelling in 0.1
hectare. The current consultation is for fifteen pitches in 1.66 hectares.
The increased numbers of people and their vehicle movements on and off the Henley Road will greatly increase the highways safety issues.
The statement on page 60 of the consultation document refers to "Access is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays". We have consulted the WCC Highways engineer who looked at that access as a possibility at the request of the WDC. He has told us that Hampton Road access 'is not a viable option' and considers that only access from the Henley Road is advised. Apart from the WCC Highways opinion, it should be remembered that the Henley Road has a speed restriction of 50 mph whereas the Hampton Road adjacent to the site is derestricted.
The statement goes on that "The landowner is very keen to promote site for this use making it available and deliverable". This is a surprising
statement since it should be remembered that during the earlier
applications the landowner was known to shun his fellow travellers
".....they do not get on with other Irish Travellers... and would not
wish to be associated .........." (WDC Key Issues, 17 June 2009). Also,
he claimed that he was unable to co-exist with fellow Gypsies and
Travellers, hence his need for a separate site (source - the Warwickshire Gypsy and Traveller Support Service). For him to now offer the land for their use seems a contradiction of his position and could be regarded as a cynical act.

It should also be remembered that he has been trying unsuccessfully to sell the land since early 2013 in spite of having received offers in excess of
the market value (at auction in John Shepherd Offices, Hockley Heath - 19
March 2013). This, together with his inability to co-exist with his kind
must raise doubts about the sustainability of his offer.

The prospect of fifteen pitches on the site will cause much unrest within
the village of Hampton-on-the- Hill with a population of some two hundred, many of whom are retired including thirty single people living alone.
Fifteen pitches could amount to an additional forty people - a twenty
percent increase - which would give an imbalance to the settled community in the Village. Their interests and that of the wider settled community must have their human rights respected.

In the consultation document, site GT13 - Kites Nest Lane, Beausale - has been given a Red classification with the accompanying comment -
"Unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller site has been the subject of
retrospective planning applications and two subsequent appeals, both
dismissed".
The same principle should also apply in the case of GTalt03 which is
considerably larger than the site which has been the subject of three
rejections. and which also carries an Injunction for the whole site.
Similarly, the site should be given a Red classification.

The circumstances that led to the two REFUSALS, the INJUNCTION and the
DISMISSAL in 2009, 2010 and 2011 are relevant and valid today. Particularly so for a site sixteen times the size which will have a greater impact on the landscape character; the visual amenity of the surrounding area, land contamination, noise and other disturbances. Given its prominent position it cannot be adequately screened to mitigate these points.

I therefore request that site GTalt03 be reclassified as a Red site and
removed from any further consideration in this consultation.

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.

I/We wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.
The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.
The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today
It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that REFUSED those applications.
Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.
We therefore request that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

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.

GT01, GT02, GT04, GT08, GT19, GTalt02, GTalt03, GTalt07, GTalt11, GTalt16 would all appear to be suitable

We object to preferred site option at Birmingham Road Budbrooke and alternative sites at Budbrooke Lodge and Hampton Road, Hampton on the Hill on the following grounds which were raised at the Warwick Parish Council meetings.

We at Hatton Station do not enjoy the infrastructure which would support this kind of influx of settlement and population. We have no playing fields or playgrounds for children and teenagers, no pavements, no street lighting and very slow broadband. The local lanes are narrow and traffic such as school buses are more and more frequent, and dangerous to local rural horseback riders.

The local school at Fernculme is fully subscribed as are Snitterfield and Hampton Magna schools. Our local GP surgeries and Warwick hospital are under strain. With no street lighting and Warwickshire lighting being dimmed nighttime crime is on the increase. We are increasingly under threat from crime in broad daylight which just 5 years ago did not exist in this area. The incidents are all there to see in our neighbourhood watch scheme.

Finally, we only heard of the deadline for objection from our neighbours at number 28 since they had received an email from WDC. Why not everyone? This is a stealthy approach. Communications should be to all in the District affected in fairness to us who pay our council taxes and live here.

This may be an ideal site - one of the few willing landowners - close to settlement but not on top of them - all services and facilities - achievable access - the Greenbelt is not sufficient to ignore this site which could take up to 15 pitches.

The Governments Planning Policy states that G& T sites are inappropriate development in the GREEN BELT unless very special circumstances can be proven.
This is reinforced by Brandon Lewis Local Government Minister in July 2013 in a written statement which says: "Having considered recent planning decisions by Councils and Planning Inspectorate, it has become apparent that, in some cases the Green Belt is not always being given the sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.

The Secretary of State also makes clear in January 2014 that he considers unmet demand whether for traveller sites or conventional housing is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt.

The Governments policy is clear that there must be wholly exceptional circumstances to justify identifying traveller sites within the Green Belt.
Applying this to site GTalt03 the question is what very special circumstances could possibly justify this prominent site for 15 pitches.

The site was refused planning W09/0157 at APPEAL for a single caravan for a gypsy family in November 2009. The District Council took out an injunction to prevent any unlawful occupancy of the land.

It is therefore untenable that the same Council is currently promoting the site for a 15 pitch development on a 1.6 hectare open aspect GREEN BELT field.

In addition Hampton on the Hill is not identified as a sustainable location for any new residential development, therefore if the village is not a location for new housing then it should NOT be considered a sustainable location for a traveller site.

Access onto and off the Henley Road (not Hampton Road) would prove extremely dangerous particularly with trailer vehicles.
The Inspector ruled that access was a reason for refusal of application W09/157.

The visual impact of a traveller site on this elevated position on a main road into the county town of Warwick would be detrimental to the area and impossible to disguise.

A public footpath crosses the westerly boundary of the site leading to Hampton on the Hill allotments A 15 pitch traveller site so close would be very intrusive and detrimental to the amenity of allotment holders.

The site is crossed by a 33000 Volt electricity line which requires access for maintenance and would pose a serious Health and Safety issue. A very significant constraint to any development of the site.

Other constraints on the development of this site relate to noise/pollution from traffic on two boundaries and the possibility of flooding on the ground adjacent to Hampton Road.

No consideration has been mentioned with regard to a satisfactory sewage system or whether a connection could be made to the main sewer.

In addition I understand that a covenant exists relating to a requirement that the land should always remain for agricultural/equestrian use.

I cannot see any reasons why this site is being considered, NO very special circumstances have been proved therefore the site should be removed from further consultations and be re-classified as a RED site.

This land has been offered by the landowner who is keen to develop it. It is on a public transport route and close to a GP surgery.

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.

I wish to register very strong OBJECTION to the inclusion of site GTalt03 in your consultation document 'Local Plan- Sites for Gypsies and Travellers' dated March 2014.

The site is within the Green Belt and in the last five years has been the subject of two planning REFUSALS by the WDC Planning Committee in 2009 and 2011. On each occasion our Parish Council and Ward Councillors, Alan Rhead (2009) and Clare Sawdon (2011) supported local residents in their OBJECTIONS by speaking for them at the Planning Committee meetings. The site has also been DISMISSED by the Planning Inspectorate at an appeal hearing in 2009 and following that in 2010 the WDC took out an Injunction to prevent any development.

The conditions that applied then are still valid and relevant today

It is therefore inconceivable that it should be given any consideration by the very authority that REFUSED those applications.

Furthermore, Hampton-on-the-Hill is not identified within either the adopted WDC Local Plan (2006) or within the draft 'Village Housing Options' consultation as a sustainable location for any new residential development. As such it is also not suitable as a sustainable location for a Traveller site.

Is is therefore requested that the site GT alt 03 be reclassified as a red site and removed from any consideration in this consultation.

This site could be very good and is available and hence deliverable. Facilities are nearby, access is good.

I fully understand the need for such sites, but to place a site right next to an area of allotments that have been nurtured for many years would be the equivalent of offering a free hand to an open supermarket .These allotments have been the livelihood of the community and Travellers right next to them would destroy the peace and tranquillity that residents enjoy. The main road that the land adjoins is a busy road with fast flowing traffic which could propose a hazard with vehicles moving in and out of the site.

This site is AVAILABLE and should be used - close enough to all facilities and good road access.

This site lies on the crest of a hill beside the main Henley Road and is a vantage point offering a panoramic view of west Warwick.


The construction of a Traveller facility on such a prominent location would be contrary to the spirit of Green Belt legislation and would store up future problems for the adjacent village of Hampton-on-the-Hill and the surrounding area.


The current access onto the Henley Road is too dangerous to use and any new access to the Hampton Road would involve the costly bridging of the roadside stream.


It should be removed from the list of potential sites.

I am writing to object to Site GTalt03 Henley Road / Hampton Road for use as a site to accommodate 15 gypsy and traveller pitches.

The site was previously the subject of a planning application for a single traveller family pitch. The government planning inspector refused to allow the application and I cannot see how creating 15 pitches on the same site will be more acceptable. Specifically:

1) Access to site from main road - was considered a major issue last time and a site for 15 pitches will result in considerably more traffic to the site. The Henley Road is used by a lot of traffic, travelling at a relatively high speed and visibility around the potential site is not good due to the elevation of the road in combination with a bend in the road and the nearby junction with the Hampton Road
2) The site will be in a highly visible location, raised up on land on one of the few rural routes into Warwick. It would be possible to disguise the site but at the expense of the rural landscape that gives this part of Warwick it's character. Warwick is an important tourist destination and this would be detrimental to first impressions of the area.
3) The Hampton road near the site is subject to flooding due to water run-off from the surrounding high land. The land round here has a high percentage of clay and does not drain well. Hard standing for caravans and roadways etc on the site will increase the chances of this happening in the future. How would this rain water run-off and sewage from the site be managed?
4) Hampton-on-the-Hill is not part of the Warwick District Local Plan (2006). I believe the village is not suitable for development / size increase by either building more housing stock or a traveller site. They would have a major impact on the rural setting of the village and begin the urban infill between Hampton-on-the-Hill and Warwick.
5) Leading on from point 4), the site is currently in green belt and until all other options are exhausted, there is no reason why this site should be considered a "special circumstance" and built on to the detriment of Warwickshire's rural environment.
6) An electricity line crosses the field. I cannot see how families with young children can safely be allowed to live under this high voltage line.

I wish to object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites GTalt03 and GT19.

Both sites are in the green belt and no special circumstances have been demonstrated to suggest that development should be allowed on either plot.

The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts. The allocation of these sites will go against that guidance.

Apart from arguing & stating the green belt policy principle, it is also worthwhile reinforcing that the development would in actual fact as well as in policy terms be inappropriate - it would 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' (The appraisal notes that GT alt03 in particular is open). Arguments for the value of the sites in terms of how their contribution to the green belt - contributing to 'openness' and to separating urban areas from each other are also relevant here. Furthermore development on the sites would be prominent/visually intrusive and the recommendation of an owner is not a relevant variable in the context of Green Belt policy.

I urge you not to consider either of these sites any further and abandon your proposals. There are a number of "brownfield" sites in the County which are more appropriate.

Response to the Warwick District Council (WDC) consultation on its Preferred Options for permanent sites for the accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers - GTalt03: Land at Henley Road/Hampton Road, Hampton on the Hill (Amber).
I formally lodge my objections to the classification of GTalt03 for the following reasons:

Green Belt and Previously Undeveloped Site

The site referenced as GTalt03 is identified as Green Belt in the Draft Local Plan. As such it has not been allocated for housing allocation nor is it within the boundaries of the village growth envelope for Hampton-on-the-Hill. Classification as Green Belt that has previously been undeveloped ought to be deemed as 'inappropriate development' for the purposes of accommodation of Gypsies and Travellers and the site reclassified as 'red'.

DCLG March 2012 'Planning policy for traveller sites' Policy E: Traveller sites in Green Belt states:

"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."

For the purposes of the planning process, the fact that the site is owned by persons identified as Gypsy/Traveller does not detract from the legal assumption that the classification of the site is 'inappropriate development'.

I note that WDC has stated that "(t)he Council does not intend to own or manage Gypsy & Traveller sites itself. Experience of other Local Authorities shows that the best way for sites to be provided and run are by Gypsies and Travellers purchasing and setting them up for themselves." Again, WDC's intention not to own or manage sites and its preference for sites to be provided and run by Gypsies and Travellers does not override the site's classification as Green Belt; such preferences/unofficial criteria are not contained in the Government's 'Planning policy for traveller sites' or the National Planning Policy Framework.
In addition it is noted that:

a) the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for Warwick District, undertaken by Salford University in 2012, identified a need for 31 permanent pitches to be provided over a 15 year period, 25 within the first five years and in addition 6-8 transit pitches over the full 15 years; and




b) WDC has already identified sufficient 'green' sites to meet this identified need:

Site Reference Capacity (potential no. pitches) Recommended Maximum
GT04 15 10
GT12 15 8
GT15 5 5
GT19 5 5
GTalt01 15 10
GT02 15 10
GT05 15 10
GT12 8 8
TOTAL 93 66

Co-Existence with the Local Community

It has been suggested that GTalt03 has the capacity for 15 pitches and a recommended maximum of 15 pitches.

Bearing in mind that a pitch provides: 'accommodation for an individual family and consists of an area of hard-standing on which a park type home or permanent caravan, a touring caravan and associated vehicles can be located, together with a utility room for sole use of that household; and, assuming that a 'family' consists of 3/4 individuals (traditionally gypsy/traveller families are larger than average households - there is much reported evidence of this fact), WDC proposes that between 45-60 individuals (this excludes visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers on the site) can be accommodated by a village of approximately 200 individuals, predominantly retired and substantial numbers of elderly women (including 30 elderly women living alone).

Such a change to the local community, representing an increase in population of 25-30%, would be disproportionate and the site would dominate the local community.

The development of the 1.66ha site will substantially change the character of the area. Given the physical and aesthetic nature of the proposal and the fact that the site is highly and clearly visible from both the Henley Road and the Hampton Road - such a development will permanently and substantially change the characteristics of the village. The impact of the site would be exasperated by the ground level being 1-2m higher than the Hampton Road; making the site eye level to people entering and leaving the village.

The site does not lend itself to the integration and inclusion of the gypsy/traveller into community.
The westerly aspect of this site is adjacent to the local community allotments; a small area bordered, on the opposite side, by residential properties. Hampton-on-the-Hill is a long established settled community with a particular socio-economic mix. Village residents' values are demonstrated by their financial and emotional investment, their permanence and their commitment to the preservation of the rural community. Their lifestyles are marked by quiet, sedentary and countryside pursuits.
The introduction of the Gypsy and Travellers site will lead to an imbalance of that community with little integration between the two. The lifestyles and cultural norms of the community for whom the land is sought are not renowned for quiet, sedentary activity or countryside pursuits. Whereas noise, disturbance, unruly and sometimes squalid conditions tend to be more commonly recognized features. Moreover, their 'travelling' tradition and practice belies disregard for the concept of an established community, a certain disrespect for the environment and an unlikely empathy for the residents of such a place. To find anything of common interest between the two lifestyles/cultures could not be more difficult. Inflicting a group of neighbours with such a divergent lifestyle on the established community would be cruel, divisive and highly contentious. It is very likely that there would be conflict, disputes, suspicions and discriminatory allegations. Harmonious coexistence is highly improbable and outcomes could have a significant impact on local authority resources.
The human rights of the existing settled community has to take priority over the transient population that is the Gypsy and Travellers community.

Children

It is noted that WDC accepts that Budbrooke Primary School is full/close to capacity. The assumption that additional funding for a school extension/expansion will be obtainable is not substantiated and certainly not guaranteed. Furthermore, given the housing allocation in the draft Local Plan for housing development in Hampton Magna of 100-150 properties, it would be reasonable to assume that the new housing development will require anywhere between 100-300 additional school places (approximately 10 classrooms). Substantial investment will be required to accommodate educational requirements in the area.

In addition, we have concerns for the safety of children on the site it is surrounded on two sides by busy roads with a speed limit of 50mph on Henley Road and Hampton Road being derestricted (60mph). There is no play area close to the site and the DCLG (May 2008) Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide positively discourages the placement of sites close to electricity pylons for health and safety reasons.

Access

Highways Safety has been recorded on two separate occasions as reasons for refusing planning on the site: once on appeal on 27 November 2009 by the Planning Inspectorate (APP/T3725/A/09/2107108) and on a separate application for planning on 17 December 2010 (W10/1221).

In both circumstances the refusal related to a single dwelling, not the current proposal for 15 pitches which could conceivably house a minimum of 30 adults (plus visitors and/or transient gypsy/travellers) owning anywhere between 15-30 vehicles which it would be reasonable to assume would create an additional 30-60 vehicle movements through any access road on a daily basis. This clearly poses a serious risk to both the occupants of the site and other road users.

It is noted that WDC has suggested that "(a)ccess is achievable along the Hampton Road with the required visibility splays". Given the narrowness of the road, the ditch, the steep incline onto the site, the 60mph speed limit and the possible numbers of vehicle movements I would suggest that this is not a viable option and that WDC is not sufficiently considering Highways Safety in its proposal.






Warwick Tourism and the Business Community

The site will be prominent to visitors entering and leaving the historic town of Warwick which is celebrating its 1100th year in 2014. Have Development Services consulted with Tourism Services and the wider business community about the potential impact this site is likely to have on the very important Warwick tourism trade?

Topography

The consultation document states that site GTalt03 is a level site when nothing could be further from the truth. The site is on the hill of Hampton-on-the-Hill which already has an issue with surface drainage onto Hampton Road. If the site is developed as suggested with a significant proportion of hard standing to accommodate mobile homes, caravans, motorhomes, vans, cars and other accommodation then this will exacerbate the already apparent flood and icing risk which will be a significant danger to the existing community and the incoming community.

I support the oblections laid out by HOTHRA in connection with the above mentioned site at Hampton on the Hill.
It would appear to me from reading their submission that this site has already had three previous proposals rejected by the Planning Officers and subsequently also on appeal as it is in the Green Belt and not suitable for the change of use put forward by the owner it seems to me that it should have been included in the RED CLASSIFICATION as it seems very similier to the Kites Nest Site which was also the subject of two public enquiries and rejected as unsuitable development.