Revised Development Strategy

The NFU is a professional body which represents the interests of approximately 75% of all farmers and growers and has 850 businesses in membership in Warwickshire. We have compiled the following comments in response to your consultation on your Gypsy and Traveller Site Options Consultation. Our views are on behalf of the farming and land management sector in general and follow discussion with local members. A group of NFU members recently met with Chris Elliott, Chief Executive of WDC together with officers from the Planning
and Economy teams and discussed the consultation paper.

We have a number of concerns relating to the consultation paper. We do make our comments in the knowledge that the Council is under a duty to assess the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in its area, and is under pressure to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale.

Our primary concern is that the site selection process has been undertaken without a thorough and well-reasoned assessment, we are seriously concerned about the level of engagement that has been undertaken with the owners who's sites have been identified as potentially suitable locations. We are pleased to note that the Council would only resort to compulsory purchase as a last resort and very much hope that a solution can be identified that avoids this approach.

The document does not include enough information on the basis for selection on of each of the sites. For example we would expect that there should be information on access to local facilities such as GPs, health services and schools for each of the sites shown in the document. We would also like to see information on how these sites would affect local infrastructure and the nearest settled community.

The local farming community must be fully consulted on sites and given access to information on site selection. It must be remembered that farmers are running businesses like other commercial property owners on their land and that they also have long term plans for the future. Sites must be selected so that they take consideration of the practical aspects of running a farm business for example by avoiding sites with close proximity to livestock units. They should avoid using high quality agricultural land.

The sites are an intensive residential use, and there are legitimate fears that it would give rise to problems of the sort all too frequently experienced in peri-urban locations where high-density residential uses abut farmland. Policy H Para 23 of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites seeks to strictly limit new sites in open countryside away from existing settlements.
We would also like to know what the Council has done to assist Gypsy and Traveller families to find land in order to provide their own sites. Self-provided provision on private sites could be an appropriate way of providing sites, provided the necessary planning permissions are sought before the sites are occupied.

Can you also outline what steps were taken to ensure that the GTAA was not carried out in isolation and had regard for the strategies of neighbouring authorities? Has the GTAA had regard for the needs of people who travel between neighbouring authorities and have steps been taken to ensure that their needs are not catered for twice. We would also like to ask whether all the gypsy and travellers in the district are only prepared to live in caravans. Did the GTAA (carried out last year) identify whether there was a need for any other accommodation types in the area?

I hope that you find our contribution to the consultation useful. If you require further information or clarification of any of the points raised in the response please do not hesitate to contact me at the