I would like to object to your proposal to create a Traveller and Gypsy Site on Stratford Road in Warwick. There are a number of reasons for my objection that will be similar to other objections you will have received from residents and business owners such as:

1. The local infrastructure cannot support this site including police resources, local schools, doctors and local facilitates will not be able to cope.

2. Peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the local community will not be achievable as the majority of residents in both Chase Meadows estate and Shakespeare Avenue estate object to having travellers move into the local area.

3. Warwick generates a lot revenue through tourism, having a Travellers site so close to the centre of Town and near the castle will have a detrimental effect on tourism. As most Police services are aware the crime rates tend to increase when Travellers/ Gypsy's move into an area and this too will affect tourism.

4. The site sits in part within the Flood plain and having a site here will increase the issues that are already being faced.

5. The travellers would experience high levels of noise pollution due to the proximity of the proposed site to the M40

6. The site is located near major roads which already see large volumes of traffic, the Councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the danger faced and issues faced by the travellers.

7. The Chase Meadows estate attracts a number of Professionals to move to Warwick having a site so close to an estate will effect House prices and the desire to live in Chase meadows will have a negative impact if Travellers move close by as not many people want to live close to Travellers as they do not integrate into society and theft and crime rates are linked to Travellers moving into a new area.

8. A spokesman for Severn Trent, which owns half the land along with the district council and another landowner, said it will object on the grounds that it thought the land was going to be earmarked for employment.
: "We were encouraged by the council to offer some of our site for employment land and then unexpectedly we were told it was being considered for a Gypsy and Traveller site.
"When consultation begins I think we would object that it is not an appropriate use of this location."

As well as these objections I have experienced and been directly affected by a similar set of circumstances in another area of the country and I hope that you will take my experiences on board and consider these as serious issues when making your final decisions on whether the Stratford side is suitable.

Stratford road is the main entrance to Warwick and the major entry route for tourists to get to Warwick & Warwick Castle. Bearing this in mind, do you really think that this site is a suitable location?

As a resident of Chase Meadows I am also more than aware of how horrible Stratford road can smell due to the sewerage works, sometimes if the wind is blowing in a certain direction it is unbearable. I cannot believe you would deem it acceptable for any residential settlement to be situated adjoining this sewage waste treatment area. Surely there would be health & safety issues surrounding this issue?
This site is also at risk & liable to flood as I checked when buying my property via the environment agency, surely this is not a suitable area to home families in mobile homes so close to the river?

Travellers have set up site illegally on chase meadows twice this year, the first time they caused a number of fires and the Fire Service was called and attended to extinguish them and there were a number of robberies and public disorder problems reported and dealt with by the police.

On my return to Chase Meadows from my second evening job after my shift at around 12:30 at night I attempted to drive into the estate through the Stratford Road entrance, after driving slowly past the approximate 45 caravans and vehicles so I didn't wake them up, I had to stop my car as the travellers had set up an outdoor gym on the road and were performing topless bench presses and other exercises, when I tried to drive past them & their gym around 12 people began to chase my car shouting and throwing stones at me! I couldn't believe that fully grown men would try and intimidate a lone woman late at night. I called the police and reported the incident but they were inundated with calls from other residents and advised that they had taken steps to evict the travellers but could do nothing until the evictions orders were in place.

I do not understand why travellers cannot be housed through the same channels that are open to the rest of the population; in fact there are a number of councils across the UK that offer housing in this manner and there are counties not too far away with half empty fully operational traveller sites.
I have had to purchase a house at a greatly inflated price, I have to work two jobs to pay for it and I think that it is utterly ridiculous that residents are forced to pay such huge mortgages and council tax to live on Warwick Chase Meadows Estate but Travellers will be able to live in the same post code and just pay a minimal site fee & Council Tax which will be covered by housing benefit which is funded by tax payers.

This site will affect working professional home owners like myself and many other young families who have recently purchased their first property on Chase Meadows. Traveller's sites reduce property value if they are problematic and nuisances as my family learned when trying to sell our bankrupted farm, people who have invested in their first homes will be understandably concerned. If I have known that there was even the slightest chance of a Travellers Site being developed I would not have purchased my property, this news has knocked me sick after my previous life experiences with Travellers as you can probably understand.

I know that you have to house the Travellers somewhere and that the Government will give you financial incentives to do so but I beg that you do not develop the Stratford Road Site.

The Travelling Community is growing at the same rate as the general population so you may only need 15-25 pitches this year but in future years how will you accommodate an increasing number of Travellers? It is likely that they will just set up camp on any spare green space around the proposed development and then on the chase meadows estate causing huge legal bills to evict them and anger amongst residents.

Is this what you want visitors to remember about Warwick?

I would like to object to this site for a variety of reasons. Firstly I object to the criteria detailed above and those used in the published selection documentation, which if one was being cynical, appear to have been deliberately altered from those consulted upon for previous sites in this process, to best suit this site and hence increase the chance of forcing this site into the local plan. The most obvious omission would be that for avoiding tensions with existing communities, which is clearly not the case with this site. Further, this site did not form any part of the original consultation process and it now seems very unusual that the council has chosen to shoehorn this proposal in with an employment land venture. This venture seems unnecessary given the large areas of employment land currently lying vacant on the opposite side of the road at Tournament fields.

I have concerns due to the lateness and speed with which this alternative site has been proposed and cannot understand how a full and proper due diligence process has been undertaken for the council to propose this site.

Had this site been included as part of the consultation process, I have no doubt that the same objections which have seen a variety of other sites rejected would have been raised for this location. It is my opinion that some of the reasons cited for the rejection of other sites in the consultation process apply to this site also. These include;

* The location of the site will not reduce tensions between the travelling community and settled community as witnessed by the current petitioning and social media campaign against this site from local residents

* There seems little regard for the protection of local amenity and local environment; given that the local GPs and schools are already extremely busy with added pressure imminent as further houses are built on the Chase Meadow estate. Has sufficient consultation been undertaken with local health managers and schools, particularly given that the new dispensary GP surgery objected to the nearby site adjacent to Warwick racecourse?

* Significant impact on residential uses

* Access off busy road

* Noise issues from M40 and A46

* Location adjacent to a sewage treatment plant is hardly conducive to a good quality of life or habitat in which to live and raise children, has appropriate monitoring of air and noise levels been undertaken to satisfy the guidance set down by the government planning policy?

*The identification of this site has clearly not been undertaken by working collaboratively or fairly (as directed by the Government's planning policy for traveller sites) with the local community or businesses due to the lack of consultation with regard to its selection. Nor does the council appear to have complied with the guidance for early and effective engagement with the local community given the decision to select this site with no prior public publication of its consideration for selection

The above points, speed with which this site seems to have been chosen/made public and the lack of consultation will no doubt lead to appeals and objections to the Secretary of State should the council proceed with the selection of this site as part of the local plan.

I would be grateful if you could take the above points into consideration and I hope that this site is not incorporated in the local plan.

Barford, Sherbourne & Wasperton Joint Parish Council supports the selection of this site as it provides a lkocation with appropriate proximity to services, good site access, proximity to the major road network and is located in a situation which can be adequately screened and will therefore have minimal landscape impact. It is also a deliverable site.

This is an appropriate site - good access to services, good site access and close to major routes. It will hopefully have minimal impact on a minimal number of settled residents and therefore should be more a more harmonious site than the vast majority of previously suggested sites.

The GP Surgery is oversubscribed already, and will struggle to cope as Chase Meadow Grows.

The access is down a unsuitable farm track, and cuts across a popular cycle path. the entrance via Stratford Rd is on a busy corner and right turning traffic going towards Warwick will cause delays backing up to Longbridge Island.

It seems that the criteria of the Gypsy's have been met in all points but what about the criteria required for the existing tennants in the area. There is also a predudice against the local residents. It has been suggested that potential flooding would not exist as work would be carried out on the brook which is located close by, why wasnt the work considered prior to the traveller site in order to help the existing residents. Why havent the local residents in the area been considered such as do they actually want the travellers there, impact on house prices, potential crime in the area, increased fear of crime, theft of dogs and personal property. I understand that the consultation period is taking into account all opinions bt surely when 99% of the comments are for objecting the plan. I also have the imprssion whatever objections put forward the site will go ahead regardless. I

1) Access
The Council's Consultation document completely fails to address the issue of Access to the proposed site simply stating 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. However unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land (which they have indicated they would not) then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particularly for Emergency Vehicles stating that:
'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.
The current farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable. In addition, accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which is itself located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorists. In short there are lots of issues around access to the site that the council have simply not addressed.
2) Air, Water and Soil Quality
The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red) with a 'potential major negative effect'. They have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' but have provided little further detail and clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.
The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites state that:
'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective
residents are not at risk'.
The fact that they have flagged this issue as red but not subsequently highlighted it in either the consultation document itself or the response form suggests that this is another area to focus on. 3) Flood Risk
Again the Council's own 'Sustainability Agreement' identified this as an area of concern (flagged as yellow) indicating a 'minor negative effect'. Nevertheless they have confirmed that the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.
The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states that 'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (Zone 3 areas)'. The Consultation Document states that the Council has a technical report endorsed by the Environment Agency saying that the risk of flooding can (once again) be 'mitigated' and this will 'eradicate the threat completely' but the report is quite high level and simply sets out possible options that could potentially address the flooding risk so it doesn't mean that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated. Nor does it detail the cost of all this mitigation work.
Given the Government's own guidelines the Council will need to prove definitively that the risk of flooding can be completely eliminated (as well as explaining who will pay for all the necessary work) or clearly the site is not suitable.
4) Effect on the local Economy
In the Council's own Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all! Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after almost 10 years and the likely effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it, this clearly suggests that the Council is trying to avoid the whole issue of the negative effect on the local economy that the proposed site could have.
This seems totally at odds with the claims that the Council have made over the years for the positive effect that Tournament Fields would have on the local Warwick economy and should be raised as a major concern.

I object to the council's plans for a gypsy/traveller site on Stratford
road for reasons of (1)access, (2)air/water/soil quality (3) Sustainability
and (4) Adverse impact to economy.

Taking all factors into account I accept that the proposed site is the best option.

Whilst I am concerned, as a matter of principle, that the District Council are obliged to provide sites, that the cost of the sites, including setting them up is likely to be excessive and that they may not be used, I appreciate that the District Council has no alternative but to do something.

1) Access
The Council's Consultation document fails to address the issue of Access to the proposed site simply stating 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. However unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land (which they have indicated they would not) then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particularly for Emergency Vehicles stating that:
'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.
The current farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable. In addition, accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which is itself located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorists.

2) Air, Water and Soil Quality
The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red) with a 'potential major negative effect'. They have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' but have provided little further detail and clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.
The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites state that:
'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective
residents are not at risk'.
The fact that they have flagged this issue as red but not subsequently highlighted it in either the consultation document itself or the response form suggests that this is another area to focus on.

3) Flood Risk
Again the Council's own 'Sustainability Agreement' identified this as an area of concern (flagged as yellow) indicating a 'minor negative effect'. Nevertheless they have confirmed that the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.
The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states that 'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (Zone 3 areas)'. The Consultation Document states that the Council has a technical report endorsed by the Environment Agency saying that the risk of flooding can (once again) be 'mitigated' and this will 'eradicate the threat completely' but the report is quite high level and simply sets out possible options that could potentially address the flooding risk so it doesn't mean that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated. Nor does it detail the cost of all this mitigation work.
Given the Government's own guidelines the Council will need to prove definitively that the risk of flooding can be completely eliminated (as well as explaining who will pay for all the necessary work) or clearly the site is not suitable.

4) Effect on the local Economy

In the Council's own Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all. Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after almost 10 years and the likely effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it, this clearly suggests that the Council is trying to avoid the whole issue of the negative effect on the local economy that the proposed site could have.

I object to the proposed site for the following reasons;
1. Containment.
The site boarders open farmland that could be illegally used for expansion. Additionally, the proposed 15 pitch site is the maximum under government guidelines, it leaves no room for growth as per guidance. That growth space is required for the families as they expand. Therefore 15 pitches is too many for the site.
2. Flood risk.
The council has no effective funded mitigation for the existing flood risk. In fact no detailed report has been commissioned into the issue. Siting residential buildings (of which may are proposed) and mobile homes on a known flood plain is unacceptable to those people living there and the wider community who face unknown costs to alleviate.
3. Access.
Access from the A429 on a dangerous blind corner will inevitably lead to an increase in serious accidents and additional congestion in the already overloaded local of Longbridge Island. This is the main access route into Warwick for the Castle.
4. Environment
The proposed environment is totally unsuitable for human habitation. It is close to a large river that floods, causing a special risk to children. The nearby sewage works regularly emit power unpleasant odours that leave people up to 2 miles away to keep their windows closed. This site is within a few hundred metres. The noise from the M40 and A46 will be excessive and damaging to health. Likewise the airborne pollution from the huge volume of traffic that uses those roads.
5. Economy
The local businesses, and especially the struggling Tournament Fields business park, will all suffer adverse effects of the proposed site being so close.

The proposed site entrance is completely unsuitable due to location on a sharp bend on a busy road.
It has not been taken into account that at certain weeks in the year Stratford Road is already gridlocked with castle traffic.
Placing this site so close to the river will cause considerable cost to the local authority in times of flood.
The location of this traveller's site will have serious economic ramifications in the development of the Tournament Fields site which is required to sustain commercial growth in the local economy.

Dear Sir / Madam,
I'd like to the object to the proposal for siting a gypsy and traveller site at the proposed location near Stratford Road, Warwick. My reasons for the objection are as listed below:

1). The documentation on this website doesn't appear to mention any potential effect that this site may have on the local economy. I was surprised by this as I would have thought that since there has been so little investment in (and the general under-development of) the Tournament Fields site, this would be a very important aspect to consider. I get the feeling that if a gypsy and traveller site is opened opposite to it this, it would only "hurt" the local economy further. Due to its lack of presence in the report, I could be excused for thinking that this may be a point that the council is trying to avoid. As the Council has made a claims in the past regarding the positive effect that Tournament Fields will have on the local Warwick economy surely this aspect of the consultation would be of primary importance?

2). The consultation document also does not seem to address the access to the site in any detail. The text currently reads 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. Surely, the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate? I presume it could be improved if Severn Trent provide access to the proposed site over their land, but I've heard that they have indicated that they would not consider this. I'd also like to draw your attention to the government's own guidelines regarding access to gypsy and traveller sites, particularly with regards to providing access for emergency vehicles. The governments guidelines state:
'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.

Therefore, I believe the current farm track would be totally unsuitable. Also, access to the site is located via a dangerous bend in the road which has very poor visibility. As with objection point 1 above, there seems to be a number of issues regarding access to the proposed site that the council just doesn't seemed to have not looked at.

3). The document section titled 'Flooding' identifies that the site is on a designated flood plain (flood zones 2, 3, 3a and 3b).
As with objection point 2 above, I'd like to draw your attention to the government's own guidelines regarding the planning of gypsy and traveller sites, which states:
'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (Zone 3 areas)'.

The council's document does go on to say say that it has a technical report which has been endorsed by the Environment Agency and says that the risk of flooding can be 'mitigated' and this will 'eradicate the threat completely'. However, this statement is quite vague doesn't detail the cost of this 'mitigation' work.

Based on the government's guidelines, it seem to me that the council needs to prove that the flood risk can be completely removed (plus explain how this work would be funded). In my mind, this is another reason why this site is completely unsuitable.

4). As with objection 1 above, the document doesn't appear to identify the obvious concerns from an air, water and soil quality perspective. I would expect this to be significant concern with it being positioned so close to Severn Trent's sewage treatment plant and the M40? I can't see why anyone could consider this site suitable for residential development, particularly where children would be living.

As with point's made above, the government's guidelines on planning these sites state:
'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk'.

This would suggest that this is another area that needs much more attention with regards to this planning application.

Thank you for your time on this matter and hope that these comments have been useful to your consultation.

Regards,
Sam Price

I recognise the ethical and legal responsibilities of the Council to provide permanent sites for the travelling communities in the Warwick District area. However, the selection of the Stratford Road site is incorrect in the substance of the decision and in the process of the decision (including not facilitating a full set of public meetings with suitable access for the working community; particularly for those who travel long distances using the transport links highlighted by the Council as an advantage of this site - this seems a highly incoherent approach from the Council that suggests that the Council is trying to rush this decision through without sufficient engagement with the local community). These failures in substance and procedures of the decision-making process unfortunately leaves Warwick District Council highly vulnerable to a successful legal challenge - at the end of such a challenge, there will ultimately be no winners as the Council (and ultimately council tax payers) will foot a bill for a legal process that will have delivered nothing for the travelling community, and is likely to have damaged the economic prospects of a very important employment area of Warwick. Therefore, in the interests of all parties, I urge Warwick District Council to step back now from this decision and concentrate its efforts on taking forward alternative sites that do not have the availability and viability problems inherent in the Stratford road site.

My main objections are on the grounds of:

1) economic impact, which is ignored in the Consultation Document despite the proximity of the site to Tournament Fields, the flagship business park in the area on which the Council has placed so much emphasis in the past. Further, the Council's own Sustainability Assessment has described the economic impact as being uncertain

2) quality of soil, water and air. The Council must be very careful of being seen to treat the travelling community as second-class citizens, for whom it sets lower thresholds for the quality of their living environment. This is a particular risk for the Council when its own Sustainability Assessment highlighted this as an area with a 'potential major negative effect'. The Council has provided very little detail on how it would mitigate these impacts and indeed has neglected to highlight the issue in the consultation process (hopefully by accident rather than as a deliberate attempt to distort the consultation process). The issue of a healthy and safe environment will be so important to resolve to ensure a satisfactory quality of life, particularly considering the presence of children in the travelling community. An obvious point in this regard is the closeness of the site to the Severn Trent treatment works, which is highly relevant to the government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites, which emphasise that 'sites.... should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places'

3) the issue of access is an area which is completely not addressed by the Council's own Consultation document, as it is left open-ended. This is totally unsatisfactory given the importance to the travelling community of ensuring safe and frequent access by large vehicles to the site. My understanding is that the only access currently available is a narrow farm track (passing by a listed building) which is totally inadequate in light of the strict guidelines for access set out in the Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites. The Council seems to be adopting a position of closing their eyes and crossing their fingers that the access fairy will solve all their problems.

4) Flood Risk. This is highlighted as an area of concern in the Council's own 'Sustainability Agreement', with the site being on designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3. This contravenes the government's own guidelines on planning traveller sites, which states that sites should not be permitted in Zone 3 areas.
The Council has a high-level report that it could 'eradicate the threat completely' but the cost of doing so is not quantified as part of the costs of developing the sites - this includes the need to avoid any knock-on effects on the flood risks in other residential areas nearby. ie if the effect of the mitigation measures are simply to move the flooding problem to another nearby location, then the Council will be open to legal challenge from the residents who will suffer from the higher flood risk.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Access
The consultation document fails to address the issue of access to the proposed site simply stating 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. However unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land (which they have indicated they would not) then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particularly for Emergency Vehicles.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
- Air, Water and Soil Quality

The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as 'potential major negative effect'. They have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' but have provided little further detail and clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

- Flood Risk

The 'Sustainability Agreement' indicated a 'minor negative effect'. Nevertheless they have confirmed that the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.

- Effect on the local Economy

The Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all! Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after almost 10 years and the likely effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it, this clearly suggests that the Council is trying to avoid the whole issue of the negative effect on the local economy that the proposed site could have.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
The Stratford Road is the main route access into Warwick for tourists. Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Access
The consultation document fails to address the issue of access to the proposed site simply stating 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. However unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land (which they have indicated they would not) then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particularly for Emergency Vehicles.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
- Air, Water and Soil Quality

The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as 'potential major negative effect'. They have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' but have provided little further detail and clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

- Flood Risk

The 'Sustainability Agreement' indicated a 'minor negative effect'. Nevertheless they have confirmed that the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.

- Effect on the local Economy

The Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all! Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after almost 10 years and the likely effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it, this clearly suggests that the Council is trying to avoid the whole issue of the negative effect on the local economy that the proposed site could have.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
The Stratford Road is the main route access into Warwick for tourists. Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.

I believe that this choice of land does not meet several of the criteria required for a sustainable and suitable location. Access to the land chosen via the existing small track is inadequate and no other options appear to exist. Regarding air, water and soil quality, I also believe that the area location so close to a sewage treatment works and the motorway makes this a hazardous and nonviable location with detrimental health issues potentially affecting residents. Couple this with the flood risk associated with the site being on a zone 2 and 3 flood plain and this is wholly unacceptable from the environmental perspective. I believe that the proposed location of this site would also impact the local services regarding the capacity of the local primary and secondary school as well as the GP surgery, which are very full. The impact on the existing employment land should also be examined fully as much of tournament fields is still undeveloped and this plan could further impact that development should the site be opened opposite it. The employment land is very important to the community and wider warwick area and hence any impacts must be fully investigated and consulted on and this has not yet happened.

I believe that the land selected is wholly unsuitable. The access shown via one little road is not adequate and teh amount of screening and landscaping required would be significant and costly. This would also not protect residents from the noise and air pollution from the motorway and sewage treatment works which are in close proximity. The flood risk cannot be fully mitigated also. The effect on the local amenities which are already bursting at capacity such as the primary and secondary schools would be too great to bear. I believe that the site is completely unsuitable and I am also very concerned on the impact on the existing business land, some of which is still empty after several years.

In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.
The current farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable. In addition, accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which is itself located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorists. In short there are lots of issues around access to the site that the council have simply not addressed.

Having reviewed the site assessment for the land off Stratford Road and also comparing it to other rejected sites it is my opinion that this site is not suitable.
Firstly access to the site will be via a narrow farm track accessed from an already busy, and arguably hazardous, road junction in Longbridge Village. In order to make the farm track suitable I would expect the costs to be excessive if it were to be brought up to the standards expected for access of large vehicles and also emergency vehicles.
Secondly I live in the area and find the air quality poor due to my proximity to the Sewage Works and the cordon sanitaire around it. I actually live considerably further away than the proposed site meaning that the impact from the sewage works would be even greater in that location. I also find that the noise from the motorway disturbs my sleep even with the windows clsoed and our property is a new build with considerably better noise insulation than a mobile home. I am also confused as to why in Appendix 3 a blanket rejection of sites within the M40 corridor is made as they are "too noisy" but then you consider a specific site within the M40 corridor.
Thirdly the risk of flooding on a site so close to the River Avon must be considered in more depth especially when the impact from the amount of hardstanding that will be required on the site to house the pitches. The proximity to the river also then places young children at risk from drowning in the river itself.
Finally the effect on local economy. Tournament Fields has been an empty site for almost ten years and now that the local economy is starting to improve there is a greater chance that businesses will be interested in that land but the proximity to a G&T site will potentially damage that and leave Tournament Fields as an empty site at the gateway into our Town.
Other factors that I feel should also be commented on are why certain sites were suggested and rejected without being fully investigated e.g. land south of the A46 but north of the racecourse. The land off Posiden way was also rejected as it was a hot spot for unlawful G&T sites and the residents didn't tolerate them but that would be the same for any unlawful site. The Dobson Lane site was rejected as it is an allotment but surely that is council land that provides minimal income and in fact that could be relocated to an alternative site.

The site is not suitable for the proposed gypsy site for a number of reasons:

Your previous assessment of sites dated August 2014 ruled out an option called M40 corridor based on "There are severe noise issues within this area which could not be overcome in a way that may be possible for conventional houses". Therefore how can this site be deemed suitable when situated so close to the M40 and A46 roads. It would not be possible to reduce the noise in this area by landscaping as the M40 is elevated in comparison to the surrounding land in this area and the noise would still be significant. As other sites have been ruled out on this basis (both on the M40 and A46) it cannot be justified stating that this site would be acceptable as it is likely to be as significant if not more so compared to the previous A46 sites.

Your previous site GT20 was ruled out for a number of reasons including "noise and air quality issues, impact on the water environment"; all of these are relevant to the suggested site on the land off the Stratford Road and therefore the site should not be progressed otherwise it would be considered that selection process has not been consistently applied across the different potential sites.

The proximity of the site to the River Avon must be of concern wit the potential impact of pollution and items being dumped into the river having an impact on the environment and the area.

Has consideration been given to the fact that the proposed employment development could potentially end up unoccupied due to concerns over security and safety of staff, property and equipment with a gypsy site located so close? The fact that there is a gypsy site there is also potentially likely to encourage others to park on the streets in this development if they are passing through/visiting other members of the gypsy community already on the site as they are likey to be quiet street in the evenings/weekends.

Your report states that there are schools and doctors within an acceptable distance, yet these are already over subscribed and the resources stretched due to the existing approved developments in the area.

The access to the site is likely to be problematic as the Stratford Road is a busy road with the employment site also proposed the roads in the area would not sustain the future traffic. Travellers going to and from the site will either use Warwick town centre, which is already over congested, have to navigate the difficult entry onto Longbridge island where there are no traffic light controls or use Chase Meadow as a rat run to else where. None of these are particularly acceptable.

The land is quite clearly in flood zones according to the Environment Agency (both from rivers and surface water) and it must be considered a very high risk to flooding. Any mitigation measures are only going to push this problem elsewhere in the water system affecting land and properties down stream or backing up further up stream. Additionally the development in this area is likely to worsen this as the water will be displaced by building foundations. The Chase Meadows estate has already had to undertake measures to alleviate flooding in their planning permission so it is obviously a known issue in this area.

In addition to the air pollution likely from the M40 there will be the additional issue with the proximity of the sewage works and the impact this may have on the occupants. Has consideration also been given to the fact that the sewerage site would potentially need to increase it security to protect the system now that the site boundaries have changed and people living closer.

With the other two sites already selected there seems to be a concentration of the sites to the southern Leamington and Warwick area, would it not be better to spread these out around the district, one to give the travellers better options but also to reduce the burden on the local areas. With these sites in the proposed areas is in not likely that they will all be competing for the same business in the area potentially causing conflicts? Is there likely to be traffic between the two other sites and the Stratford Road site, if so this will use Warwick town centre as a route increasing an already congested route. Is there the possibility that there may be rival families on the different sites and conflict could potentially spill over into the local established communities?

Similarly with so many sites in the area is there a risk that Leamington/Warwick town centres may become an area where the travellers congregate/meet damaging the local business, tourism and communities?

My objection is based on:

Access
Despite good access being a key criteria, the consultation document makes no reference to how that will be achieved. The current access road is inadequate.

Flood Risk
The site is on a known flood plain. Drainage is already a significant issue in the existing Chase Meadow homes.

Economic Impact
No positive economic impact has been identified. I believe the impact will actually be negative, as the current empty Tournament Fields site is highly unlikely to ever be completed with travellers living opposite. Tourism will also be affected as the site is on the main route into Warwick.

My objection is based on:

Access
Despite good access being a key criteria, the consultation document makes no reference to how that will be achieved. The current access road is inadequate.

Flood Risk
The site is on a known flood plain. Drainage is already a significant issue in the existing Chase Meadow homes.

Economic Impact
No positive economic impact has been identified. I believe the impact will actually be negative, as the current empty Tournament Fields site is highly unlikely to ever be completed with travellers living opposite. Tourism will also be affected as the site is on the main route into Warwick.

I object to the proposed gypsy site at Stratford Road as it is an ill thought plan which has been rushed through without suitable consultation with the residents in the area.
Although within good access to the motorway network, no consideration has been given or explained in relation to the actual access to the site. The access area is very poorly lit and on quite a significant bend. There is no detail on how the site access is going to be developed so how can a case be put forward that we have been consulted? The travelling show community use the car park at the Race Course for the Mop Fair and this is very well organised. Having seen the vehicles used, I cannot see, nor has the planning department been able to demonstrate how the large vehicles could manoeuvre safely onto the proposed site. It is a fairly dangerous bend and very dark at night. In the proposal more than one access point is needed and should allow for two vehicles to pass. If these required standards are to be met, this is going to incur significant costs to the council tax payer; in times of austerity this is not a sound cost effective proposition.
Also the plan for an employment site doesn't seem to make sense when there is already designated land at Tournament Fields which is still under developed. There has been no consideration on the obvious negative effects the gypsy and traveller site would have on the local economy in relation to attracting local business into the area.
I object to the fact that no information has been provided on how much this is going to cost the tax payer. Money is required to make the access to the site safe; noise attenuation, screening the site to name but a few. This can only mean in these times of austerity that services/ jobs will be lost as a result. This does not help the local economy or

As I have previously emailed directly to Warwick Council the proposed site on Straford is not suitable for a number of reasons: 1 Flooding - the site is in an area of flood risk and is therefore not suitable for housing despite suggestions of mitigation opportunities. 2 Air quality, soil, odour and pollution - e proximity to the motorway and sewage treatment works make this and unsuitable site for housing, and only tolerable as business/commercial use, though not ideal. 3 Economic impact - creating jobs and employment areas is essential to sustain the local economy. Locating a Gypsy and Traveller site at the proposed Stratford Road site would deter businesses from the exisitng Tournament Fields site and any commercial development adjacent to the gypsy site. 4 Economic impact - negative impact for property values on the Stratford Road and adjacent areas - the council are likely to face claims for compensation from local residents. 5 Green Field site - in other areas of Warwickshire there are a number of disused / under utilised urban sites that would be more appropriate for development than a green field site on the edge of this historic town e.g. Warwick Council depot near Warwick Parkway station North of A46, land adjacent to new Morrisons at old Ford site in Leamington, land adjacent to Leanington Railway station. 6 Site Access - Severn Trent have stated they do not want access to the site over their land, and therefore the only access could be via small existing road or via a new entrance onto Straftord Road close a significant bend. This would not be a safe option.

The location is right next to the sewerage works. Living on the far side of chase meadows the odour infiltrates the whole of the estate significantly in the summer months which would make the site unsuitable for residential development. Increased traffic is an issue and concern with ongoing development on Beaumont Meadows and Chase Meadows still in progress. The town centre has serious traffic management issues at rush hours and weekends and further development would only add to this. The land would be more suitable to commercial development and increased employment is more likely to be accessed from the A46/M40 rather than residents that would need the facilities of the town centre. Chase meadows would provide the closest schools and medical centre which already cannot cope with the amount of parking facilities, the roads regularly being full of parked cars and businesses on Edgehill Drive having insufficient car parking which is an issue with the ambulance service being located there and needing easy access. The medical centre does not appear to have parking for patients either. Flood risks have also been identified in the area and further residential development of any type is only going to increase the risk and surface water drainage required. Whilst Taylor Wimpey have taken steps to reduce the risk based on their development plans they will not have factored in additional development in the vicinity that will impact on risk analysis.

This area should be developed for employment. A strategy to move away from this may delay the development of lands off the Stratford road for employment.
Site is in close proximity to the motorway and sewage works and as a resident of the area the noise and regular smells from the sewage treatment works deems the area unsuitable for any further residential development. This is also supported by the Councils Sustainability Report and against the government guidelines for planning gypsy sites.
Often bats are flying in this area, a full bat survey is required.
Access to the site is unsuitable for any residents.

I object to proposal to site pitches for 15 pitches for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation at Stratford Road, Warwick. First of all the site is most obviously destined to flood. One only needs to look at a map ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2585379,-1.6021904,785m/data=!3m1!1e3 ) to see the proximity to the River Avon. Any site can be protected from flooding by the use of flood defences but these would be a substantial additional cost to the site development. If/when flooding does occur the site would be contaminated by flooding of the Severn Trent treatment works. I think it would be very inappropriate to accommodate families, often with small children, next to river which has claimed lives in recent times. I know many people live near rivers but the settled community will have time to plan for safety measures rather than arrive on a site with a life-threatening hazard nearby. The proposed site is also currently in a "cordon sanitaire" for good reasons and it is likely that the site would need considerable and expensive testing and remedial action to remove any possible contamination for a site which will accommodate families, often with young children.
Access to the site is known to be poor - currently unsuitable for heavy vehicles and entirely unsuitable for emergency vehicles. The turn off from the Stratford Road is badly sighted and potentially dangerous for towing vehicles. Improving that junction would be very costly and may even be impossible. Further improvements to widen the track to allow vehicles to pass each other would also increase costs and may not be possible. I understand it would also necessitate a compulsory purchase of land to enhance access.
The site is less than 200m from the M40 motorway - day and night noise would be a difficulty for people using the site. Air quality will be poor - research shows that those who grow up less than 500m from a motorway have reduced lung capacity ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jan/26/pollution.transportintheuk ).
I also believe that there would be an economic disadvantage to the Tournament Fields business park as the presence of a Gypsy and Traveller site so close by may be a disincentive to businesses considering developing a new or existing business there.

There are fundamental flaws in the selection of the Stratford site relating to issues of site access, flood-risk, living conditions for residents, impact on local economy, and integration with the local community. I refer details of the above to CMRA's Formal Response, countersigned by ~400 residents in the area.
It worths noting WDC's disservice to serve the public interest, by rushing this proposal without due to consideration of the community's concerns (evidenced by the inadequacy of two surgeries, the lack of representation at the Aylesford gathering, and the conflicting messages from the planning team at various stages of the process).