Submission concerning the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Budbrooke Ward
I am writing as a Ward Councillor and would like to put forward various points for consideration. I would like to say at the start that I am not predetermined in my views and I am prepared to listen to other arguments on the subject of sites within WDC.
Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed
On 4th February this year The Minister responsible for Travellers, Brandon Lewis MP, said:
"Our policy strengthens protection of the greenbelt and the open countryside by making clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate for greenbelt development and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside. Unmet demand — whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing — is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelt to constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt."
Government policy has been supplemented by a Ministerial statement4 in July 2013 which, although focussing on development management decisions and the Interpretation of the G&TPP, sets the general approach expected by the Government with regard to providing sites in the Green Belt:

"... the single issue of unmet demand, whether for travellers' sites or conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development."

The G&TPP has been prepared on the basis that LPAs will make their own assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, rather than relying on regional allocations as had been required hitherto.

Oaklands Farm is a site within a wider hamlet of dwellings along the Birmingham Road, 4 houses immediately to the south towards Warwick, then beyond Ugly Bridge Lane, there is a Shell petrol station and a further 10 properties. Further along the road there is the roundabout and the entrance to Hatton Park. All the dwellings on the Birmingham Road are of long standing within the Green Belt. The farm has permission for caravan storage and a kennels business on the site. It has been the subject of many planning applications over the years and I would like to remind members of some of these incidents:

The following structures have been approved in the recent past
- A replacement dwelling and the replacement of the existing kennels.
- Permission for the existing vehicular access to remain for agricultural purposes only.
- Use of the barn for caravan repairs and servicing with the associated caravan parking area was also approved.

An application for using the site for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused by Warwick DC Planning Committee on the grounds of Green Belt with the following observations taken into consideration, the site is on a busy and fast main road which had had 2 fatal accidents in a near proximity within the last 5 years.
The landowner applied to extend the caravan storage business and for change of use from agricultural land use to storage, both applications were rejected by WDC as not being permissible in the Green Belt.

Much of my arguments for removing Oaklands Farm from the list of preferred sites is due to the Inspector's comments concerning the Kites Nest Travellers site, as that site is less than a mile away from Oaklands Farm and the Green Belt argument was used very successfully in the removal of travellers. I will say that the same arguments can be used with regard to Oaklands Farm.

To quote from the Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal dated 22nd October 2013

"For development to be allowed in the Green Belt, very special circumstances need to be identified. What constitutes very special circumstances are not identified by local planning authorities. The term is consequently a moving target as appear to be the weights and measures used to arrive at a weighted decision. The appellants (at Kites Nest) provided a list of 15 issues that could be considered as very special circumstances as to why the development should be allowed. These did not include such common issues as health, education or children. The issues are complicated and fraught. I will ask what are the special reasons to consider overthrowing Green Belt policy at Oaklands Farm? from the paper put forward I can see none.


In Para 64 of his statement The previous Inspector involved with Kites Nest found that the development was very prominent through 'gappy hedges' and from public footpaths and that the existing caravans were an "extremely jarring element"; the Secretary of State agreed with this assessment.

The Oaklands Farm site would be very visible due to the 'gappy hedge' along the road and also from the canal, and also the road is higher than the site so occupants would be overlooked. In the current consultation document, comment is made that a habitat buffer would be required to the south of the site abutting the canal, I would argue that a landscape screening buffer would also be required for any gypsy or traveller site to give the residents privacy on both sides of the site, let alone the jarring element of the site for local incumbent residents and people passing along the road or canal.

The Inspector also found, and the Secretary of State agreed that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that community would be dominated by a 13-pitch scheme. The same applied to an 8-pitch scheme.
This also applies to Oaklands Farm as it is situated between 4 houses to the south, the petrol station to the north followed by a row of around 10 houses, so the proposal if pursued would dominate the local community along this road. The 5 proposed pitches would increase the property density by 25% along this stretch of road and therefore change the local dynamics.

83. To quote - Policy B of the Planning Policy for Travellers sites - PPTS says that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" and Policy D says that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community". The use of the term "community" is deliberate; it is not the same as settlement or that term would have been used. There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of community amongst the occupiers of the 10 or so dwellings in the immediate vicinity.

The previous Inspector accepted that 'the scattered houses 'do form an identifiable community.

Birmingham Road houses form a community and therefore I would argue that this site would be going against the Inspectors comments which have helped WDC in the past.

I would like to make two further comments on the Oakland Farm site, firstly the provision of education for gypsy and traveller children. It is suggested that the children could attend Budbrooke School, two comments should be made about this suggestion; Firstly Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton Green could not be looked at as an alternative as it too is full. Secondly, regarding children I would be very concerned about the health and wellbeing implications for young children living next to the canal.

Finally regarding this site if it is chosen I would say that the current landowner's business would be put at considerable risk and I would ask the question - would WDC be liable to pay compensation if the site is acquired under a CPO?

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

I will briefly cover the two option sites at Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey as the arguments I have put forward regarding the Oaklands Farm site can equally be used for these two options, both are within the green belt, so the Kites Nest arguments are very relevant. There is no exceptional circumstance argument for these sites to be used, they are very obvious from the main road, Hampton on the Hill being adjacent to the main Henley Road and the lane entering Hampton on the Hill village. The Norton Lindsey site is on the Warwick Rd approaching the village, so not only are they visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but also considering traveller privacy I would argue that they would face being over looked from the road and therefore their privacy would be lost. Both these roads, although subject to a 50mph restriction are very fast roads and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the sites by large vehicles with trailers attached.

Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey are both close village communities and as I have previously said both the indigenous community and the traveller community need to be considered for a cohesive community to be maintained. I would argue that the proposals would destabilise the balance of the communities to the detriment of both villagers and any site residents.

Both sites have been put forward for by land owners for change of use, in the case of Norton Lindsey for residential housing - this was rejected on the grounds of green belt and the busy road. Hampton on the Hill site is subject to an injunction to prevent any travellers entering the site and as far as I know this injunction was instigated by the District Council with the support of local residents to safeguard the site. I find it odd that the Planning Department are suggesting this site when it goes against their own policy!

I would therefore suggest that all three sites within the Birmingham Greenbelt should be withdrawn as being unsuitable, mainly due to the Inspectors views and also WDCs own policies, let alone government policy regarding G&T sites.

Barford Sites

Now I would like to turn to the Barford sites within my ward. I would first like to correct the consultation document, the doctor's surgery in the village closed over 30 years ago so would not be accessible for the travellers! Also the Barford Bypass has a sixty mph speed limit along it and is used by a large number of vehicles on a daily basis who exceed this limit. Cllr Caborn in his capacity as the County Councillor for this area is well aware of local concerns regarding the number of accidents along this road, I will say that children walking to school across this road would be put at considerable risk if either site went forward for further consultation. Neither site is within the Warwickshire green belt but they are within the Arden Parkland highlighted by the Kites Nest Inspector last year, so need to have special consideration due to their high landscape quality. Both sites would require Compulsory Purchase and would incur a great deal of Council Tax payer's money being spent.

Local people are very concerned about the inclusion of both sites:

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

The main arguments against this site have already been mentioned in my preamble, a dangerous road and lack of a doctor's surgery. The risk of flooding of the site has been shown over the last few weeks with the site being under water at some times. Basically it is common sense not to place people across a major road from facilities, children and fast traffic do not mix!

Secondly, GT12alt - land off Barford Bypass - proposal for 15 pitches

It's location on the inside of the bend has resulted in the Parish Council being told that the County Council will not support this scheme on grounds of road safety.

The other major reason to remove this site from the preferred options is the involvement of local people from within Barford who have been so active in enhancing this site following the securement from Warwickshire County Council of the lease of this land to the Parish Council. The acquisition of this land has allowed local people to have access to the river and they have put a great deal of work into site, following it's identification in the Barford Village Plan of 2005.
European LEADER money was applied for and granted for 25 rare and local trees to be planted in the orchard and the river walk to be created. Over 40 villagers have worked regularly on the site over the last 3 years .This means Thousands of pounds worth of 'in kind' contributions doing the following:
- cutting back undergrowth
- cutting and raking grass,
- digging and planting the Orchard and 25 River Walk Trees
- pollarding
- Learning how to prune
- creating and gravelling paths
- Creating steps and safe slopes
- Maintaining the grass paths and cutting the 'Wild' strips.
- Mowing the Orchard and open areas
- Installing Gates and benches.
- The local Heritage Group gave money for plaques and the Diamond Jubilee Oak.
Future plans include bee hives and a wild meadow area which has already been sown.

True Localism and community effort by local people.

Oldham's Bank is now part of a village walk which takes villagers through the Orchard and along the River. It has seating areas (much enjoyed by older members of the community) and the walk adjoins another footpath through to the neighbouring village of Wasperton

Oldham's bank has been listed as one of the Community assets on the recently submitted 'Community Right to Bid' submission

Whilst the site was "derelict" after CPO to build Barford Bypass it is also classified as "highway" and any move to use it would require all the legal process and expense to remove that status. The remainder of the site is in private ownership and is not being volunteered by the landowner so would require a separate CPO.

If this land were to be acquired as a Gypsy and Traveller Site I would argue that the likelihood of a "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" would be strained. The site is too large and would have a jarring impact on the landscape which is so vital to this area and the view across the Sherbourne from Barford would be spoilt.

In summing up, as Ward councillor for all these sites I would ask that they all be removed as they are not in the spirit of localism and would not benefit our local people or the gypsy and traveller community.