Dear Warwick District Council,

I would like to object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Stratford Road, Warwick.

I was very disappointed that Warwick District Council did not send any representatives to the public meeting on Thursday the 4th of December at Aylesford School. I also feel that the two month consultation period is unfair because it is not long enough and has not given local residents enough time to react and consider the effect of a traveller site on the local community. The 'drop in' centre slots organised by the council were scheduled at inconvenient times for working residents.

LOCAL ECONOMY
My first objection is that I don't think that local economy has been properly considered.

As the UK has just started to recovery from the recession then it is likely that businesses will want to be situated on Tournament Fields (opposite the proposed site) which would be great for Warwick's local economy but no business is going to want to situate itself opposite a potentially growing Traveller and Gypsy site. Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after the long recession the negative effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it.

Stratford road is the main tourist route into Warwick for visitors of Warwick Castle and the race course, it seems ridiculous to place a gypsy site so close to this entry into the town. For instance if there are problems with larger amounts of travellers arriving than pitches are available or they simply attend a relatives christening, birthday or wedding then it is likely that they are going to park up on the grass verges around the site or on Tournament Fields business park. Numerous Travellers/Gypsies have parked up on the grass verges near in Aylesford School on Tapping Way road the last few years when visiting a horse show. This is not what we want tourists and visitors to remember about their trip to Warwick.

FLOOD RISK
My second objection is the high risk of flooding

When buying my house I completed the searches though the environment agency to ascertain whether there were flood plains near Chase Meadows estate. And it quite clearly states that the areas near the river have a large flood risk.

The fact 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)'. I find this point is ridiculous that you are even considering letting people live in a highly vulnerable area especially when young children and animals are likely to live on the site.

The overall expenditure to minimise the risk will cost the council tax payer a large amount of money and can the council prove the risk has been eliminated once the work is completed.

QUALITY OF AIR, SOIL AND WATER
My third objection is the overall quality of the Air, Soil and Water

The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red) with a 'potential major negative effect'.
The site is situated very close to a sewage works and a noisy motorway which will cause issues with the quality of the Air, Water and Soil and therefore is not an ideal place for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site, particularly one where children will spend most of their time playing outside.

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'.

ACCESS
My forth objection is the access to the site

Unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable for the size of trailers the travellers will need.

Accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to 'Longbridge Manor' a Grade 2 listed building which is located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for Motorists.

Again as mentioned in my first objection there is a problem if visiting Travellers Park up on the grass verges of Stratford road.

1) This land is considered unsuitable for residential use, but WDC is proposing it for use as a G&T Site. It cannot be acceptable to expect anyone to live in an area considered unsuitable for other forms of residential use.
2) It is unacceptable to develop a site where people will live so near to a sewage works, with inevitable issues from malodorous gases.
3) The river's proximity and the site's location within the flood plain are strong reasons for this development to be considered unsuitable.
4) Site residents living in mobile homes would be subjected to excessive noise from the M40.

This is a further representation on this part of the Local Plan following publication of new information by the District Council.

The consultation process for Warwick District Council's Publication Draft Local Plan is seriously flawed. As we highlighted in our response to the previous consultation, policies that depend on the Strategic Economic Plan ('SEP') are not justified because key evidence was missing. The current 'focused consultation' is far too narrow to make good these fundamental flaws.

For example, the current consultation document makes no mention of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment ('SHMA') Addendum dated September 2014. This is a critical document that should inform the local plan and its omission renders the current consultation unsound. It appears that WDC is misleading potential consultees, resulting in an unsound local plan - it is not justified.

This consultation response outlines objections to new material and its relationship to earlier material:
1. Summary of issues with the Strategic Employment Land Study ('SELS');
2. Issues with the SHMA Addendum;
3. Issues with the Sustainability Appraisal ('SA'), including the recent SA addenda.

This focused consultation response adds more weight to our previous submissions that the proposed local plan is unsound and it policies are not justified.
Summary of Issues with the Strategic Employment Land Study
The SELS claims that it provides a robust evidence base for the Strategic Economic Plan ('SEP') produced by the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership ('CWLEP'). However, the SELS's recommended scenario is based on the CWLEP's own prediction of new jobs. The SELS is neither independent nor robust evidence - it depends on circular arguments. Its call for two or three new sub-regional sites is based on impressions of the chosen consultees rather than substantiated evidence.

The SELS's forecasts of demand for employment land yield vastly differing results with the highest figure being nearly 6 times the magnitude of the lowest. There is no satisfactory explanation for either this very wide disparity or for other conflicting trends across forecasts. The chosen forecast is likely to prove wildly inaccurate.

The SELS forecast based on Cambridge Econometrics' Baseline requires 201 hectares and is stated to be the minimum amount of employment land to meet the CWLEP's plans. The SELS ignores the fact that this forecast is significantly higher than the alternative forecast (Experian's) used in the SHMA Addendum.

In contrast, the SEP claims that the Employment Land Review recommends 250ha. Yet the SELS now recommends that its 'growth figure' of 326ha should be used as a minimum estimate of need. The SELS 'growth figure' is predicated purely on the CWLEP's unsupported prediction that its City Deal would create 8,800 new jobs in advanced manufacturing and engineering by 2025. The SELS takes this figure at face value, without subjecting it to any form of independent verification, and compounds it with unvalidated assumptions. The SELS thus alights on the resulting number as its recommended demand figure, apparently for no better reason than it is what the CWLEP would like to see in order to promote its interests. No justification is given for compounding high growth on a highly optimistic/risky forecast of demand.

On the supply side, SELS starts with a figure of 353ha of available employment land and applies invalid discounts and unjustified reductions until this figure is reduced below the now grossly inflated demand figure. This artificially shrunken supply figure still fails to take proper account of the planned new 100ha employment site at Gaydon. Despite all of these highly dubious exclusions, the SELS still acknowledges that 197ha of employment land is available.

When evaluating strategic employment sites in the LEP area, the SELS acknowledges that planning policy such as Green Belt is relevant but then the skewed selection criteria chosen by SELS omit this key consideration. For example, the SELS does not even mention that Green Belt is precluded from a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Also omitted is another key criterion for large strategic employment sites, particularly logistics sites: namely, direct rail connection. The SELS grossly undervalues rail-connected sites such as DIRFT3, Birch Coppice and Daw Mill.

Despite recognising that the greatest socio-economic need is in the north of the CWLEP area, the SELS uses a Site Appraisal Assessment Methodology that depends on very selective and short-sighted measures. This highly questionable methodology results in good assessments for sites in the south of the area regardless of how ill-served they are by public transport from the area of greatest socio-economic need in the north.

Based on its methodology, the SELS claims that "Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (Zones A and B) in particular satisfies all the strategic sites criteria." This amazing claim is despite the fact that:
* It is in the Green Belt;
* Access requires extensive off-site highway improvements;
* There is no direct rail link;
* There is serious contamination;
* There is currently poor provision of facilities and amenities;
* There is currently poor public transport accessibility to the site;
* At best, there would be only moderate access to A roads (from Zone A in particular);
* Emergency access (to Zone A) is very restricted in a cul-de-sac passing directly adjacent to Coventry Airport's runway end;
* It is not in the north of the CWLEP area where socio-economic need is greatest;
* It has negative environmental impact.
Additionally, twelve of the SELS's Potential Strategic Employment Sites are identified as being a good match to the CWLEP's strategy, all offering good alternatives to the Gateway. However, even this list of 12 alternatives is an under-estimate because others sites are unjustifiably criticised. Additionally, key strategic sites on the periphery of the CWLEP area, such as DIRFT, the MIRA Enterprise Zone and Blythe Valley Business Park, are omitted without justification. Put simply, there is no shortage of alternative sites.

The recently published version of the SELS has clearly been written with a view to providing, for the already 7-month-old SEP, post-hoc justification for a stream of questionable assertions and heroic assumptions in the SEP, which reflects long-held aspirations. The SELS is nowhere near good enough or cohesive enough to meet even that very limited objective. Its many technical weaknesses and its inherent bias mean that it cannot be taken seriously as an independent assessment of the need for, and supply of, employment land in the CWLEP area. It does not provide a valid justification for development of the Gateway site.

The new evidence does not provide a robust evidence base for the proposed policies in the emerging WDC Local Plan. Multiple forecasts are provided in the various new reports and these forecasts diverge greatly. The SHMA Addendum has one forecast - by Cambridge Econometrics - that is 45% higher than the other (Experian's). The SELS is based on the higher of these forecasts but then it chooses an even higher forecast - its higher growth forecast that is 62% higher again - as the basis of its recommendations. None of these choices of forecast is justified adequately.

The recommendations in the SELS are based on the LEP's prediction of jobs growth; the SELS is neither independent nor robust evidence. The LEP's SEP claims to be supported by the SELS even though the SEP pre-dates the final version of the SELS by 7 months. Such circular arguments are fatally flawed.

The SA makes it clear that the policy to create a new Sub-Regional Employment Site is dependent on the claimed economic benefits. Such claimed benefits are highly speculative. Site selection ignores key constraints such as Green Belt. The SA is unsound and proposed policies are not justified.

The further information we have provided in this focused consultation response adds weight to our previous submissions that the proposed local plan is unsound and it policies are not justified. In particular, it adds to our previous submissions that proposed policies DS16, DS8, DS9, DS19, EC1 and EC3 are unsound and unjustified; the remedies remain as we have previously submitted.

see attached

I refer to both of the above consultations.

The County Council has responsibility for services across the whole of the County including: highways and transportation; schools provision; public health; waste management; community safety, libraries, support for elderly and vulnerable people and as the statutory planning authority for Minerals and Waste. In addition to these responsibilities the County Council is a principal partner of the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership and has statutory a duty to cooperate on County Council matters in working with all partners in the sub-region.

Comments in response to the "Focused changes" consultation

Strategic Highways impacts assessment update
The County Council is undertaking further assessment work for impacts to test the impacts of the focused changes, and what transport mitigation is required as a result. We intend to submit this information to the District Council later this month as a final iteration of the Strategic Transport Assessment.

Highways and Transportation matters

The County Council has worked in partnership with the District Council to identify the transport impacts and mitigation requirements relating to the WDC Local Plan. A series of Strategic Transport Assessments (STA) have been undertaken, STA4 represents the latest full assessment of the Preferred Options; further addendum work has been completed to identify impacts pertaining to the focused changes to the Draft Local Plan, and the implications these have for transport mitigation and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.



The STA work has identified broad areas which require mitigation schemes, as identified in the attached image (n.b. some isolated schemes will fall outside these broad areas). The attached image contains a plan identifying the Strategic Transport broad locations and a revised schedule for the associated infrastructure.

The schemes identified through this process have been developed to a stage appropriate to the level of strategic modelling assessment and mitigate the impacts of Local Plan transport demands to a level deemed to be acceptable. A complete, current list of mitigation requirements identified in STA4/STA4 addendum is attached. This forms the latest position in terms of highway mitigation requirements to inform the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

It should be acknowledged that the schemes proposed within the STA modelling have not been subject to any detailed design, costing or safety review at this stage. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that the schemes recommended through the studies are fixed and will be delivered in the form described within the reports. Rather it is intended that the schemes proposed are outline schemes which may change through further optimisation and detailed design that will precede their delivery. Scheme development will be informed through both the planning process for individual sites and through scheme development undertaken by the County Council. This position is documented with the STAs and acknowledged by the District Council.

Deliverability

The County Council seeks assurance that the cumulative impacts of Warwick District and Stratford on Avon District growth requirements are properly accommodated in both local plans. It is essential that a joint robust mechanism is considered to implement these cross border issues. One solution would be that joint and common infrastructure requirements are reflected in the respective Infrastructure Delivery Plans without "double dipping". Nevertheless, this is a matter for both Planning Authorities to agree a mechanism for implementation of its policy mechanism.

Comments on the proposed policy changes

It is for the District Council to determine and explain the sustainable deliverability of the Local Plan and in particular in relation to the changes for the proposed Europa Way sites. For clarification I refer to proposed changes to:
Para DS9; DS11; D14; and Policies Map: 2 Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash - amend remove employment allocation E1 at Land North of Gallows Hill.

Additional comments on Public health matters

We suggest that when the District Council commence its Development Management Documents', consideration be given for limiting new planning permissions in areas where there is already high concentration of hot-food takeaways and licensed premises.

Gypsies and Travellers Preferred Options Consultation Land at Stratford Road, Warwick

We support the District Council's proposal to allocate sustainable and affordable sites to meet the permanent residential needs of this District's Gypsy and Traveller Community and Travelling Show People through the Local Plan process. The current consultation sets out an alternative site option that is potentially suitable to take forward as an allocation in a Development Plan Document.

The County Council supports the District Councils' commissioned evidence through the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for Warwick District, undertaken by Salford University. The report was published in November 2012 and demonstrates 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.

The District Council has identified land off Stratford Road at Warwick, which currently lies within a 'cordon sanitaire' around the Sewage Treatment Works. Our records indicate that the site is outside the cordon sanitaire and therefore could be suitable. We suggest that further discussions should take place with the Environment Agency and Severn Trent to identify the extent and limitations of the cordon sanitaire.

Other matters we wish to comment on

Schools
The County Council has a statutory duty to ensure sufficient school places and this includes Academies within its planning. We seek assurance and certainty regarding the deliverability of supporting school infrastructure to meet the growth of the Local Plan and in particular that these matters are prioritised in the R123 list.

Delivering the Local Plan
The CIL Guidance published by the Government in June 2014 states that a Charging Authority, should be able to explain how their proposed rates will contribute towards the implementation of the relevant plan, and support development across their area.

Consequently, we welcome discussions regarding the delivery of the Local Plan and governance arrangements for passing on CIL monies to the County Council to enable us to deliver identified infrastructure in a timely manner.

We would be happy to discuss our comments with you. Please contact Mark Ryder on 01926 412811 should you wish to discuss any aspect.

see attached

see attached

I have just been informed about the above and the fact that we are now one of 3 locations being considered for this location. This is very concerning to us. We built Pure Offices less than a year ago (it opened in October) and are currently 75% occupied and this is rapidly growing (to give you an idea, we generally assume a centre will be 50% occupied after year 1 and 85% after year 2). We have another centre down the road in Leamington and this is nearly 100% let. Businesses seem to be flocking to the town, especially international start-ups. We feel very positive about employment for the town and the need for more business premises and yet we seem to be loosing employment land in favour of a gypsy and traveller site which seems ludicrous based on the current market we are witnessing. Warwick is our fastest growing centre in terms of occupancy, this is out of 14 centres located throughout the UK. In our eyes new business moving to the town is booming and we are really excited about the prospects for the centre. Being so well located to the M40 is our key selling point and why the centre is so popular. I appreciate that in recent years there may have been less interest in the employment land in this location from developers and owner occupiers but I do feel we are seeing a shift and shouldn't therefore loose any employment land in this key location.

Warwick District Council Local Plan - Focussed Modifications and associated Sustainability Appraisal

Proposed additional Gypsy and Traveller site off Stratford Road, Warwick and associated Sustainability Appraisal

Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on these proposals.

My consideration and response is based on the expectation there has been a proper assessment of the significance of heritage assets affected, including their settings ; and the proposals support the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), with one of the core dimensions being the protection and enhancement of the historic environment .

The NPPF requires Local Plans, as a whole, to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. This means ensuring that the sites which it is proposing to put forward for development, will assist in delivering such a strategy and not contradict it.

Employment land allocation on land off Stratford Road, Warwick
This stretch of the Stratford Road is a surprisingly understated and pleasant entrance to Warwick from the M40. It's positive characteristics should be recognised to inform strategic landscaping and moderate highway works which may be required to facilitate any future development.

The proposed allocation is adjacent to Longbridge Manor, a Grade II* listed building with circa 14/15 century origins. The Manor is served to the south by a pleasant 'rural' lane and entrance. Development immediately to the east will affect its significance.

Opposite the site is the Old House and its ancillary barn, both Grade II listed buildings. Beyond to the east are the Warwick Castle Park (Grade 1) and Warwick Conservation Area.

Unfortunately there appears to be no evidence to demonstrate a consideration of how the proposed allocation site contributes to the significance of these designated heritage assets, particularly Longbridge Manor (NPPF Paragraph 129). Neither is there evidence to demonstrate where development may be inappropriate because of its positive relationship to adjoining heritage assets (NPPF Paragraph 157), or how harm might be avoided (NPPF Paragraph 152). The commentary in the SA is rather rudimentary and dismissive, failing to provide an accurate or reasonable assessment of the impact of future development.

The selection of sites for development needs to be informed by the evidence base and the Plan should avoid allocating sites which are likely to result in harm to the significance of heritage assets. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable and justified, in accordance with the NPPF, the Plan should consider how that harm might be reduced and any residual harm mitigated. This could include measures such as a reduction of the quantum of development, avoiding locating development within a particular part of the site, ensuring reinforced strategic landscaping, and limiting the height and volume of development.

Without such evidence Warwick DC cannot assert that the allocation and the amount of development proposed (11.7ha) can be delivered without causing harm to heritage assets of national importance contrary to explicit legislation and national planning policy. Consequently I remain concerned that the Local Plan as proposed is unsound.

It is important to note that:-

- great weight should be given to an assets conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight to the assets conservation there should be (NPPF Paragraph 132);

- special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building (S66, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;

- development will be expected to avoid or minimise conflict between any heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal (NPPF Paragraph 129).

Following the ruling in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council, English Heritage, the National Trust and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 137, considerable importance and weight should be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. Less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. There is a presumption that preservation is desirable.

Further analysis is therefore vital. I would strongly recommend the application of The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, 2011).

Gypsy and Travellers Site on land off Stratford Road, Warwick
The secondary/indirect impact of the proposal should be considered. For example could the 'rural' character of the lane serving the site, and the Grade II* Longbridge Manor, be retained as a consequence? Are intrusive highway works to facilitate the development required? How might these issues be addressed?

Change of proposed uses on Land North of Gallows Hill, Warwick
English Heritage acknowledges the potential for development to the north of Gallows Hill /west of Europa Way, but the implications of a stadium on Castle Park and the intermediate historic landscape must be appreciated, as should the consequences of accommodating additional traffic through the town. I will avoid repeating again the reasons why evidence to inform the principle and form of allocations is required. Needless to say I consider further work is necessary.

I look forward to further updates in due course. Do contact me to discuss any of these matters at your convenience.

see attached

see attached

See Attached

I am distressed to find out that after registering an objection and for alerts in relation to the proposed gypsy sites around the Stratford road/ Hampton Magna area of warwick that a further site is in consultation that was not included in the proposal nor have I received any alert from the council after registering for this service.

The truly distressing part is it feels as though this is being covered up as the first I know and lord knows how many other residents is via the 'spotted' pages on Facebook as you have not sent any alerts nor publicised well any meetings associated.

I understand that the council has now met its obligation with the accepted sites and therefore I would like to understand why this is needed?

Please can I ask that you forward me information on how to object and strongly recommend that you contact everyone that has registered for alerts on this matter as you should have done initially.

see attached

I would like to object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Stratford Road, Warwick.

I was very disappointed that Warwick District Council did not send any representatives to the public meeting on Thursday the 4th of December at Aylesford School. I also feel that the two month consultation period is unfair because it is not long enough and has not given local residents enough time to react and consider the effect of a traveller site on the local community. The 'drop in' centre slots organised by the council were scheduled at inconvenient times for working residents.

LOCAL ECONOMY
My first objection is that I don't think that local economy has been properly considered.

As the UK has just started to recovery from the recession then it is likely that businesses will want to be situated on Tournament Fields (opposite the proposed site) which would be great for Warwick's local economy but no business is going to want to situate itself opposite a potentially growing Traveller and Gypsy site. Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains largely undeveloped after the long recession the negative effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it.

Stratford road is the main tourist route into Warwick for visitors of Warwick Castle and the race course, it seems ridiculous to place a gypsy site so close to this entry into the town. For instance if there are problems with larger amounts of travellers arriving than pitches are available or they simply attend a relatives christening, birthday or wedding then it is likely that they are going to park up on the grass verges around the site or on Tournament Fields business park. Numerous Travellers/Gypsies have parked up on the grass verges near in Aylesford School on Tapping Way road the last few years when visiting a horse show. This is not what we want tourists and visitors to remember about their trip to Warwick.

FLOOD RISK
My second objection is the high risk of flooding

When buying my house I completed the searches though the environment agency to ascertain whether there were flood plains near Chase Meadows estate. And it quite clearly states that the areas near the river have a large flood risk.

The fact 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)'. I find this point is ridiculous that you are even considering letting people live in a highly vulnerable area especially when young children and animals are likely to live on the site.

The overall expenditure to minimise the risk will cost the council tax payer a large amount of money and can the council prove the risk has been eliminated once the work is completed.

QUALITY OF AIR, SOIL AND WATER
My third objection is the overall quality of the Air, Soil and Water

The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red) with a 'potential major negative effect'.
The site is situated very close to a sewage works and a noisy motorway which will cause issues with the quality of the Air, Water and Soil and therefore is not an ideal place for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site, particularly one where children will spend most of their time playing outside.

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'.

ACCESS
My forth objection is the access to the site

Unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable for the size of trailers the travellers will need.

Accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to 'Longbridge Manor' a Grade 2 listed building which is located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for Motorists.

Again as mentioned in my first objection there is a problem if visiting Travellers Park up on the grass verges of Stratford road.

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers

Preferred Options Consultation - Land at Stratford Road, Warwick

Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency in relation to the above preferred options consultation which we received on 31 October 2014.

The Environment Agency requires further information in relation to flood risk before we are able to recommend the inclusion of the above site be included in the site allocations that are safeguarded for Gypsies and Travellers.

Flood Risk
The preferred site shown in Map 1 of the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers Preferred Options Consultation Land at Stratford Road, Warwick Document Dated October 2014 is within Flood Zone 3.

The detailed modelling we have of this area is the River Avon 2009 Model, which demonstrates that there is no risk of flooding to the site from the River Avon. The model shows the site which is on the right bank of the watercourse is 3m higher than the left bank.

However there is no reference provided for the technical report referred to on page 5 of this consultation document.

This site is has recently been introduced to the consultation process, and fell outside of the detailed consultation we provided on the 44 sites previously submitted we ask that any information regarding the flood risk to this site is re-submitted.

Additionally the wording in your consultation document is not clear on the perceived risk of flooding to the site from the brook. There should be an investigation to assess the level of flood risk that the brook poses to the development site. It is possible that this could pose an unacceptable risk of flooding to the site and this must be assessed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Protection of Controlled Waters
Reference to the 1:50,000 scale geological map Sheet 184 (Warwick) indicates that the site is located on Triassic Mercia Mudstone which is designated a 'Secondary B Aquifer' by the Environment Agency. Superficial River Terrace Deposits of are indicated for the site which are designated as a 'Secondary (A) Aquifer'. The River Avon is located adjacent to the site.

We are not aware of contamination issues relating to this site however this does not preclude the possibility of contamination existing due to current or former site uses. Government Policy, as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 120), states that "where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner".

Should the site currently or formerly have been subject to land-use(s) which have the potential to have caused contamination of the underlying soils and groundwater then any Planning Application must be supported by a Preliminary Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the risks posed to 'Controlled Waters' by any contamination are understood by the applicant and can be safely managed.

We will object when a Planning Application is submitted without a Preliminary Risk Assessment and we believe there is potential for contamination and a possible risk to 'Controlled Waters' receptors.

Site investigation, risk assessment and remediation may subsequently be required depending upon the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment.

We actively encourage the use of SuDS at new developments, however proposals for the drainage of surface or roof water into the ground will need to take into account the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment and any subsequent site investigation. If contamination is present and surface water is to be drained to ground then the contamination risk assessment will need to consider the additional infiltration from the surface and roof water system(s).

The discharge of treated sewage effluent into surface water or to ground may require an Environmental Permit from us. The granting of planning permission does not guarantee the granting of an Environmental Permit - a permit will only be granted where the risk to the environment is acceptable. At the time of applying for relevant authorisation the applicant will have to justify why connection to the public foul sewer is not possible.

Our guidance document 'EPR H1 technical annex to annex (j) Horizontal Guidance H1 - Annex J 4 Groundwater risk assessment for treated effluent discharges to infiltration systems' comments that "It is recommended that chemical toilet waste is not discharged to a package treatment plant, as the chemicals may poison the treatment system and cause pollution." Consequently should it be proposed to discharge foul effluent generated by this development to ground, a separate contained system will be required to take chemical toilet waste.




In conclusion
We look forward to further engaging with you in relation to the flood risk issues for the above site allocation.

We trust that you will find these comments useful. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on the number provided below.

We wish to voice our objections to this proposed Permanent Gypsy Site.
This site is right at the entrance to Warwick from the M40 . This road is being called the Gateway to Warwick by our Warwick Tree Wardens Group and over the last 2 autumns tree planting has been done from the Longbridge round-about along the whole length of the Stratford Rd. up to West St. We have now started on the avenue of trees in West St.
itself.this will be a splendid approach to our historic county town of Warwick.

There is procrastination over the local plan which has left us in the situation of merely fulfilling a Central government obligation and depriving residents of adequate local representation. It is clear that Warwick town is merely seen as a dumping ground by the majority of WDC councillors. There were many other options for the siting of this Gypsy site including Leamington and Kenilworth. It would appear that the easiest option was taken. It would appear that little consideration is being given to local residents in the Longbridge area on whom this will impact greatly.

This is designated as a Rural Area by the district council and should be protected from development . The council's new Local Plan which is in fact not yet approved, proposes that this large field is developed for industrial/business purposes as well as the gypsy site. This should not be allowed to happen

see attached

The attached 15-page document details my specific reasons for objecting to the site based on the fact that it is unsuitable for its intended purpose when judged against the Council's own assessment criteria and Government guidelines for designing Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Please note - I was one of a number of concerned local residents who helped contribute to the formal objection submitted on behalf of the Chase Meadow Residents' Association, a document which I whole-heartedly endorse and support. However I also wish to submit my own personal objection as part of the consultation process. Any similarity of wording between the two documents is as a result of having helped, where I could, to provide some of background research for the CMRA submission.

Having had to put in many late nights and sacrifice time with my family at the weekends to put in the work necessary to help support the CMRA submission (within the short timescales the Council have allowed for this consultation) I want that work to have the greatest possible impact and it is my understanding that individual submissions carry more weight with the Council.

I wish to raise my formal objection to the land being used at Stratford Road for a Gipsy and Traveller site due to the following reasons. However as we have previously discussed the process WDC has followed to select the Proposed Site as a preferred option (including the public communication and consultation process) has been flawed and before any site can be selected a more transparent, democratic and evidence-based process must be run. I am also disappointed that my previous compliant regarding the process has received a stock answer from the planning team from the person running the process and it was not investigated by another member of the planning team as per the councils complaints procedure published on your website. Additionally sending a housing officer to the public meeting rather than a member of the planning team is at best unfortunately or a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation. The process followed is far from widely accepted best practice.

My planning objections are as follows:-
- The Severn Trent Land is not available for development immediately and although you have insisted it is available they have committed in writing that they do not support this plan and additionally will not allow access through their land.
- Any use of a CPO would fail the governments planning criteria on land being immediately available and the land proposed is not currently in your ownership
- I have serious concerns that the lack of a transparent feasibility assessment made available so far may show that the land is not viable anyway due to the cost of access, landscaping, flood defences, fencing and providing local services
- The Size of the site is inappropriate for the small village of Longbridge, and the site size is right at the top end of the current planning guidelines.
- Building this close to the M40 has significant health risks for children and should be discouraged.
- Poor Access to the site on a dangerous corner off A429 - the planning guidelines state that due to the length of the vehicles involved this needs to be built into the road design
- Current lane to site is not fit for purpose and needs to be improved
- Land is on a flood plain and although the council has quoted a study to say the risk can be managed, the study itself warns against this conclusion as more studying is required. Additionally there are no costs associated with this work.
- Your own assessments raised a red flag against air, water and soil quality on site but doesn't state how you will resolve this.
- The noise assessment undertaken at the site is not of an acceptable quality as it only occurred in a single 4 hour period in good conditions - this was noted in the report and you are well aware of its shortcomings

have been given your email as our local MP, and hope that you receive my email and read with interest, in respect to my objections regarding the above.

On Friday 15th August I received a leaflet from Chase Meadow Residents Association regarding the above - a little disappointed that it arrived AFTER the council meeting had taken place to be honest.

I live on the Chase Meadow Estate, and so as you will understand I am writing to you about the proposed site of Stratford Road, opposite Tournament Fields.

Firstly, I would like to know why this site has been shortlisted when it was not on the original list of 20 sites proposed? And secondly, is this really what Warwick District Council want our visitors to the Town to see as a first impact into the Town?

Warwick Castle alone receives over 1/2 million visitors each year! The majority of these tourists will enter the the castle via the Stratford Road. I do not understand why a District Council would want to jeporidise the tourist industry for our town... this will have an impact on us without a shadow of a doubt. Not only will it reduce the footfall of tourists to our town, which will impact on our ever declining high street. It will also effect local businesses in the area, notably the 2 hotels Hilton and Holiday Inn, plus have a massive impact on the house prices of Chase Meadow and Earls Meadow, not to mention increase the crime in the area. Some may say that my last comment regarding crime is unfair, however I have witnessed the Hilton Hotel barracade the kitchen area due to travellers getting in and stealing food etc, and also our local pub The Unicorn be closed for the day due to travellers being in the area. So from a first hand view I know this will impact on crime.

Not only that - earlier this year travellers camped out near Aylesford school, and left a disgusting mess behind as I am sure you are aware. My husband is a keen runner and ran through the area where they were camped, only to have a gun pointed at him... disgusting!

I am not alone when I say that this is the wrong site. Not just for my own personal selfish views, but the views of all Warwick residents and businesses alike.

Will we get a chance to put our views across before a decision is made?

Thank You for your very long email. However, I cannot see any comment relating to my initial concerns such as:

Increased crime in the area
Drop in house prices
Damage to local businesses
Damage to our tourist industry

I also see no mention of my comment regarding Warwick District Council wanting this to be the first impression of our historic town!

Plus my more serious comment regarding my husband and a firearm being pointed at him - no comment or concern what so ever!

I completely understand that these sites have to go somewhere, although I am struggling as a tax payer to understand why after all they choose this way of life, and it is us who ultimately will be paying for the site and them to live there scot free!

You mention walking distance to a town center - really! Honestly I cannot understand your thinking... The council agree for private housing to be built, with massive price tags, and then you want to site traveler sites nearby knowing this will effect the house prices and all of my above comments - there are much better places to site this. What a representation for our Town, I cannot believe the council would want this...

I can't help but feel that your email is simply an email that has been crafted as a generic email to send out to all residents with concerns - just a way to fob us off. Very disappointed.

I do hope that the public consultation will be well advertised to all who it effects - and look forward to being one of the many chase meadow residents to come along and express our concerns.

I was amazed to learn that WDC have cut straight across the prolonged consultation process in the selection of suitable sites to permanently accommodate Gypsies and Travellers in the Warwick District Council (WDC) area with the eleventh hour inclusion of a portion of land, bordered by the A429 Stratford Road, M40 motorway and River Avon, which had not been previously considered (Site B).
I can see the attraction of this site in terms of easy road access (via the existing 'Tournament Fields' roundabout) and the fact that the land in question is jointly owned by WDC, Severn Trent Water and another amenable land owner; thus simplifying land acquisition. I understand that part of the site was already earmarked for employment needs under the Local Plan and that this will be swept up in the overall development plan.
So what are the drawbacks? I believe there are valid objections to the proposals both from the point of view of potential occupiers of the site and of established local residents, which I outline below.
1. Loss of farmland. According to the Council's own site assessment, part of the area in question is designated grade 2 farm land. In response to other potential sites I note that the Council have stated that "ideally grade 2 land would not be used for development". These meadows are currently being grazed.
2. Proximity to STW sewage treatment plant. The draft Local Plan notes "This site was previously unsuitable due to a Cordon Sanitaire in place around the sewage works. However, due to modern working practices and equipment, the Cordon Sanitaire could now be reduced in area." How convenient! As a resident of Chase Meadow I am keenly aware that, under the right climatic conditions, we have to keep our windows closed because of the smell from this plant. The Travellers' site would be considerably closer.
3. Proximity to River Avon. Whilst the site itself appears to be generally above the conventional 'flood plain', it is highly susceptible to exceptional flood levels (that are becoming more common). The site adjoins the river so would be the first to be affected under these circumstances. There are also potential safety issues, particularly for children, with the closeness of reed beds and a fast flowing river.
4. Proximity to M40 motorway. The furthest point of the site boundary is only some 550m from the hard shoulder. Most of the site is much nearer and will be subject to persistent, mind-numbing, traffic noise. Again there are, potentially, significant safety issues, particularly for children, with ease of access to the adjacent motorway.
5. Proximity to private dwellings. A number of dwellings that could be considered 'executive homes' are in close proximity to the site; e.g. houses on Earls Meadow, Longbridge Manor. There are hotels and restaurants; e.g. Warwick Hilton, Holiday Inn, Porridge Pot. Home Farm is indicated as being totally surrounded by the site!
6. Potential for unauthorised extension. It is not currently known where the permanent Travellers' encampment would be located within Site B, but the space requirement for 15 pitches is very small in relation to the overall area. Therein lies the problem. What is to stop additional space being taken over (illegally) by further groups of Travellers - if only in transit? Such a scenario would be very tempting, particularly given the benefits of the many local amenities listed in the Council's site assessment.
7. History of illegal encampments. Travellers have often set up camp in the Warwick area. 'Tournament Fields' has been 'invaded' several times; this is directly across the Stratford Road from Site B. Earlier this year 'Tapping Way' was also illegally taken over; another location close to Site B. What is the relevance of this? It points to the familiarity, perhaps even popularity, of this area to sections of the Traveller community. The establishment of a permanent base, as noted in the previous paragraph, has the potential to expand to larger gatherings and could also lead to more frequent attempts to set up these illegal camps, exacerbating the issue further, with a detrimental effect on the neighbourhood and even interruption of traffic on the Stratford Road.
I would ask that the forgoing be taken into account and the issues considered as part of the assessment of the unsuitability of this parcel of land for the purpose being mooted.

I would like to express my sincerest concerns and confusion over the decision and procedure adopted to build a permanent gypsy and traveller site on Stratford road opposite the Chase Meadow housing estate.

I firstly would like to ask how it is possible to have chosen a site which was never actually on the original shortlist of sites? We live in a democracy, and this means abiding by the rules and regulations set out by those we elect. If those in a position to make decisions such as these do not abide by the basic principles and procedures in making those decisions then the whole system becomes dangerously and worrying flimsy. Any decision made regarding this also becomes invalid.

I furthermore must question what the point of having councillors is if they are not going to turn up to public meetings to listen to their people? I am insulted, as was everyone else at the meeting, that Chris Elliott said he would not be attending because he "did not want to listen to people's opinions." If he does not wish to listen to people's opinions then I must ask why he is in the job he is in? If this is the case then might I suggest he changes careers to something where he is not obliged to listen to people's opinions? Perhaps a lighthouse keeper? Or a shepherd?

This whole process of choosing the site has been totally baffling, and has not been in the least transparent. Members of the council fail to tell their constituents how far along the process is; how they are making their decisions; when they are making their decisions. On the rarer occasions when they do turn up to speak to people it is at times when the vast majority of people concerned are at work and so are unable to attend; the council cannot even be bothered to send the relevant people to the event to answer questions correctly, and as a result residents have been given incorrect or misleading information. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Furthermore, why would you choose to waste tax-payer's money on building on a council-acknowledged flood plain? When it floods due to the increased level of hard-standing and tarmac you will be putting down you will only have to rehouse the travellers and pay for repairs and compensation. Where do you plan to rehouse them when this happens? Have you a set budget in mind? How much is the site going to cost to build in the first place? Who is going to pay for all this?

I'd also like to ask how you propose entry to the site. The road from Longbridge village is far too small and bendy as it is to be able to accommodate enormous caravans, so a new one will have to be built. This is not included in the plans, so exactly what is the plan regarding access to the site? This has not been made clear.

I am also certain there could be other places where the site could be built without having to wipe out the local population of endangered species such as otters.

The facilities on Chase Meadow as it is are already busy or full; they will not cope with the expected increase of traffic and demand if the traveller site is installed where you are proposing. There is not the capacity in the local economy to be able to take it.

On the whole, the council's behaviour and attitude towards the concerns of local people has been totally unacceptable. The level of involvement, engagement and transparency over these plans given towards local people has been absolutely lacking. There has been a total dearth of clarity and engagement. The legislative process of choosing the location for this site has been absolutely ignored and not been abided by at all, so any decision to build the site on Stratford Road is null and void as it has not been taken in the correct manner, or in line with current legislation or procedures.

The council has behaved ineptly throughout this whole process and the concerns of locals which have so far been ignored must be acknowledged, addressed, and utilised in the decision-making process.

Your sincerely,

An extremely disgruntled resident of Chase Meadow.

I wish to submit an objection to the proposed permanent Gypsy and Traveller site on the land opposite Tournament Fields in Warwick.

1:
My first point of objection is regarding the position of the proposed site, being on a major road off the M40 motorway into town with traffic being extremely busy throughout the day, on most days, I fear there will be a significant danger to this community especially where there are children around.
2:
This site is very near the water treatment plant and I believe this would be a particularly unsuitable place to expect people to live, I myself live within half a mile of the plant and on quite a few days throughout the year when the wind heads northwards the smell from this plant is quite awful, I can only imagine how bad it would be for those who live even closer than I do.
3:
The housing developments opposite, known as Chase Meadow and Tournament Fields are steadily growing in size and therefore in population and I suspect that very soon, many facilities such as schools, leisure and medical centres could well be strained where additional families only add to the growing problem.
4:
Being so close to the M40 motorway may also prove to be an issue where noise could be a potential annoyance for people living nearby especially at night when the constant 'drone' of traffic could be most upsetting particularly for those living in mobile homes and caravans which do not usually have the best soundproofing.
5:
I do wonder if the proposed site may also have a potential risk of flooding due to the close proximity of the river and with a fairly flat surrounding terrain, could pose quite a threat bearing in mind the ever worsening climate change.

I must also express my disappointment with the authorities in adding this site to the list of sites in such a late manner as it was not on the original or the shortlist and therefore leaves very little time for consultation amongst local residents, it would appear that this is being 'fast tracked' without proper consideration to all affected.

I do hope that you are able to consider my thought and concerns on this subject.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am emailing to object to the Gypsy & Traveller Site Proposal for Stratford Road Warwick.

There are many points against this proposal but the one I wish to highlight is the Health and Safety aspect with regard to the travellers themselves. The proposal places them adjacent to a large sewage works which is not the place where I would choose to live under any circumstances and would certainly not wish my children to live. I feel sure that had this land been suitable for building on, there would have been successful proposals for housing well before now.

Surely the life style of travellers is more associated with the countryside rather than heavily populated urban areas. A siting such a as Stratford Road is bound to have a huge number of potential protesters owing to its proximity to Warwick town, it's potential negative effect on the development of local business in Tournaments Fields, and the costs which would be incurred in shielding it from the worst effects of being next to the sewage works and the possibility of flooding when the Avon overflows its banks.

Please in order to avoid mass opposition to this scheme, withdraw the plan and seek a more rural solution.

It is with the upmost of regret that I feel the need to send you this message with regard to the above-mentioned subject.

Firstly, we were NOT informed at the original consultation, which we attended, that Stratford Road, Warwick was on the shortlist.
WHY ??

This part of Warwick is the main 'GATEWAY' from all routes, including the Motorway, to what is the second biggest tourist attraction in the U.K.What a sight for sore eyes to greet the many tourists that frequent the Town. Unfortunately, we can speak from experience that eye sores they do become. We have only recently moved to Warwick, where we thought we were purchasing a property in a sought after area !!!! We moved from Birmingham where there was a Gypsy/Traveller Site only minutes away.
When visiting the local waste disposal site, the traveller site was in full view and a complete disgrace, set alight and destroyed by they themselves.
And, of course, house prices did not go up, but only down and stopped like that until the day we left, and lost thousands of pounds !!!

At the present time, the Chase Meadow Estate has a good reputation and house prices have increased, with the cost of certain properties rising above £500,000. For which people would have worked and strived very hard to attain, and paid their taxes to achieve this goal in their lives. This also includes my Wife and I, who worked all our lives to attain what we have.

The Government, we are TOLD, have a duty of obligation to the travellers, BUT WHERE IS YOUR DUTY OF OBLIGATION to hardworking class who have paid their 'dues' in life. These travellers are very much for their own community, and like isolation, so why, therefore, do you not cater for their needs, and give them isolation ?? And put them on sites where their strong beliefs and values do NOT infringe on our way of life.
Our experience in Warwick with the Travellers thus far, has not been pleasant, with verbal abuse when they are here. NOT VERY NICE AT ALL.

Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

It is my understanding that Warwick District Council met on the 13th August to approve an amendment to the local plan with reference to a proposed site on the Stratford Road Warwick, alongside the Severn Trent site down to the M40 for the purposes of Employment land.

As part of this proposed change was the inclusion for a 15 pitch Gypsy and Traveller permanent site!!

This site was NOT part of the original consultation, nor was it a part of the short list.
I find this ability to "move the goal posts" to suit the council completely unacceptable and brings a mockery to the entire consultation process previously run.

It appears that council have the authority to do entirely as they wish, without consideration to the residents of the town that it is here to serve!

My objections to this site as well as the proposed sites on Hampton Road (GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Race Course and Hampton Road) remain unchanged;

- 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 2013, 2014, 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.

- 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. One of the proposed sites (plot 11) is located on the border between a 30mph and 60mph limits. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
Hampton Road is a fast road and the concern of an additional turning so close to an existing turning on this type of road is a risk to the residents safety.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
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.
The proposed Hampton Road and Junc 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved.
Also, the Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending the races.


I would like to thank you for taking to the time to read and file my objection to these proposed traveller sites and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the forthcoming meeting.

We are very concerned to hear about the proposal to establish a Gypsy & Traveller site on land adjacent to Stratford Road, Warwick. This site was not included in the original shortlist, or indeed the list of sites put forward in the initial consultation.

We wish to object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1) Flood Risk: Approximately 50% of the proposed site is deemed by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 3 - a designated flood plain. Further sections are identified as zone 2. Sites GT04. GT15 and GT19 were all either excluded or reduced in size as a result of flood risk. WDC are quoted in their response to GT04 as saying, "...building a site on a flood plain would be unacceptable."
2) Noise: The proposed site is bordered on two sides by busy roads. The M40 corridor has already been excluded due to noise levels in previous proposals. The A429 Stratford Road is the main thoroughfare into Warwick. At 40 MPH, the road noise would be a significant consideration. This is compounded by deceleration/acceleration at the roundabout and also 24-hour access to the newly positioned West Midlands Ambulance Station - with associated warning sirens.
3) Smell: On occasions the smell from the sewerage facility is obtrusive and can be unpleasant when simply driving past the site.
4) Loss of Grazing Land: The land within the proposed site has been designated as grade 2 grazing land. Within the exclusion justification for GT12, WDC have stated that, "...ideally grade 2 land would not be used for development."
5) Impact on Tourism: The A429 is the primary tourist route into Warwick and also links the town to Stratford-upon-Avon. Even with proactive landscaping, the potential impact on tourism is a concern. Buses and coaches travelling along the A429 would undoubtedly observe the site - a large proportion of the 750,000 visitors to Warwick Castle alone each year. There is also a possibility that the site will be visible from the top of the towers within Warwick Castle.
6) Impact on Local Businesses/Economy: The site is in close proximity to two of Warwick's largest hotels - bordering one. There is potential to reduce numbers of guests and conference delegates, with users choosing to utilise alternative venues. The Tournament Fields development is already struggling to attract tenants to the existing properties, with land identified for further development. Companies will be reluctant to move their business premises into an area adjacent to a G&T site. Buyers will be deterred from purchasing houses currently being built to the south east of the Chase Meadow estate, as a result of the G&T development.
We would question whether the Gypsy & Traveller Community really want to purchase and setup a semi-permanent residence sandwiched between two busy roads, a sewerage works and a flood plain?
We look forward to hearing your response to these above concerns.

We would like to add our names to those concerned by proposals for a permanent traveller site on the Stratford Road, in Warwick known as site B in the local plan draft.

As residents of Chase Meadow, we know only too well of the impact of the minority of the traveling community, when during their recent stay near the entrance of Aylesford school, they left the area in terrible state during and once they had left.

As most other local residents would say, we would prefer this not on our doorstep. But bearing in mind that the Stratford Road is the main route into Warwick from the M40 and thereby has hundreds of visitors to the area travelling along it every day. We believe this should be protected from any potential disruption or negative visual impact.

We also have concerns about the way in which the site has been put forward at such a late stage, not being on the initial list of alternatives, or preferred options, which were known publically as early as June 2013. Then subsequently being fast tracked down to a list of three based on land for potential development becoming available.

We hope to have the opportunity to express our concern further during the consultation on the site during September.