Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 58878
Received: 19/07/2013
Respondent: Michael Sheard
Access from a heavily used road network and access and egress would not be safe.
Not sustainable for multi-modal accessibility. No access to local community facilities (schools, doctors, surgeries, etc.) on foot, cycle or bus - only by car which places further pressure on highway network.
Not a location that would allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with local community.
Ecological value not assessed.
Dear Sirs
Revised Development Strategy Response
Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.
Part A
The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07801 787891
Email: mikesheard6@gmail.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 56
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper
Part B
Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.
In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.
I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:
The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.
The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been
successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.
There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.