Object

Representation ID: 64873

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Nicola M Megeney

The majority of the Leamington FC shareholders do not wish to to sell the land and CPO is not a viable option. Therefore the site is not deliverable.
The site does not comply with the NPPF and is not an appropriate location and conflicts with good practice guide "Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites". The site is inappropriate for the following reasons:

Road Safety: Harbury Lane is a busy road and the junction with the Fosseway has a record of accidents. There are no footpaths and therefore there is no approrpiate pedestrian access to facilities. The road would be dangerous for school children to wait for school buses.

Education: Bishops Itchington School will be need to accommodate pupils from new housing close to the village. It is unlikely to be able to accommodate this proposal.

Medical Services: local GP practices are at capacity

Integration: the site is relatively isolated and the existing settled community in the area should be able to choose to live in an isolated location. The site is adjacent to an existing residential property. This person has not been directly consulted nor have others who live nearby (lack of duty of care). There are approximately 20 people living in te vicinity. The G&T population could be several times higher than this, which cannot aid integration. Stray dogs may cause issues for local livestock farmers.

Landscape: The site cannot be integrated in to the landscape; much of the site is prone to flooding and raising the ground would harm the character of the area; the site would impact on views from the listed Chesterton Windmill. This heritage asset along with the Fosseway are not mentioned in the SA.

Floding/Drainage: Prone to flooding, as is Harbury Lane. Soak away/run off cannot be achieved as the soil is clay based.

Infrastructure: No mains gas, sewerage or drainage; BT consider the site too remote to provide adequate phone/internet services; mobile phone services are not reliable.

Odours: the site is close to Barnwell Chicken Farm. Previous odour assessments suggest the site would be significantly affected.

CPO/Plannng Policy: DCLG have clear guidance stating the CPO should not be used to provide permanent pitches for G&T sites.

Inconsistency: site GT03 is no longer part of the proposals, yet the objctions are very similar. It is inconsistent to retain GT04.

Leamington FC: the demoition of Leam FC to accommodate 5 or 10 pitches is an expensive and unviable option and is unlikely to be supported by the directors/shareholders of the Football Club. WDC should not be paying for this, particualrly as the site is unsuitable.

Nearby G&T Sites: the site at Ryton is under-utilised. The G&T community should buy land rather than be supported by the Council.

House prices: the proposal will affect house prices and a compensation package should be included.

Money Laundering: WDC should ensure their polcies comply with current money laundering regulations

GTAA: the Salford University report is not objective or reliable. Websites indicate that there are not enogh travellers in the country to fill the sites. The report contains many flaws and over-estimate need. The GTAA does not consider capacity at existing sites. Earlier work on need suggested a much lower requirement. The report did not seek the views on other residents or businesses. Need should be based on the number of illegal encampments. Only 7 families are currently in caravans, so that should be the need.

Planning Guidance and Previous Consultations: Guidance says no more than 5 pitches per site. The proposals are not consistent with this. Public opinion expressed in previous consultations has been ignored.

The G&T planning policy is flawed and many MPs are challenging it. and WDC should not comply with it. They have a duty of care to settled communities and should defer a final decision.