I would like to lodge my objection to the location of the proposed G&T site off Stratford Road, Warwick.

As a Chase Meadow resident, I have no issues with the proposed employment land proposal on the adjacent land as I think this is a suitable location for employment land in terms of proximity to the M40 and A46 and I think this would be a positive development for the district, town and local economy.

However, I believe there are a number of practical reasons to object to the proposed G&T site on the adjacent land, which would be to the detriment of the land, local community and traveller community.

Availability of Location
My first reason to object to the G&T site off Stratford Road is that the two land owners associated with the G&T site, Severn Trent Water and Mr Robert Webb, both of whom have advised Chase Meadow Residents Association that they are both objecting to the G&T site.

Therefore WDC has not, and cannot, provide evidence that the 'chosen site' is more available, more deliverable and/or more viable than all of the other previously considered and rejected sites on the grounds that the landowner is not willing to sell their land for a prospective G&T site.

If a CPO is not a consideration (for commercial and public interest reasons), then the site at Stratford Road is surely not more suitable than any other site considered?

Should WDC consider a CPO, then surely all sites rejected on the grounds that a landowner does not want to sell, need to be reconsidered?

Inadequate Access
On the basis that Severn Trent Water have already informed me in writing that they will be objecting to the location of the G&T site and not provide access via their land to a G&T site - access is a concern.

In the Consultation there has been no indication of how access to the G&T site would be achieved. A detail one would expect to have been considered for a site chosen as a 'chosen site' for a permanent G&T site.

The current access point to the farmland where the site is to be located is via a farm track leading from Longbridge village. This track would be inadequate in terms of its size and condition and further more according to the Government's own guidelines (The DCLG Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice
Guide) it would be unsuitable. I quote from this document para 4.25 - 4.29:

'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.

Furthermore access to the site would be on the sharp bend on the A429 Stratford Road at Longbridge village. Turning into the site from this corner is already hazardous before you consider the potential of increased traffic from up to 15 permanent G&T families. This would be compounded during rush hour periods as the traffic approaching and exiting Longbridge roundabout is already very busy.

Finally on this point, the road from Longbridge roundabout to the corner of Longbridge village has already seen multiple vehicle accidents since 2005 (source crashmap.co.uk) so the approach road to the site is already a hazard before you consider the increased volume of traffic as a result of the development.

Flood Risk
When the site was being assessed prior to consultation, WDC's Sustainability Assessment identified that flooding on the area for the G&T site was a minor negative concern, even though the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.

Government 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)'.

In the Consultation document, WDC indicates that mitigation could be taken to eradicate the threat completely.

However there is no further detail on the options as to how, evidence this can eradicate the threat or who would pay for this mitigation and whether this would be commercially viable.

So given the Government's guidelines, I object on the grounds that WDC has undertaken insufficient research to prove that mitigation work can be undertaken to completely eliminate any flood risk on this 'chosen site'.

As such WDC cannot meet Government guidelines for planning any form of residential developments within flood zones.

Air, Water & Soil Quality
In the WDC Sustainability Assessment, it identified that Air, Water and Soil Quality was an area of significant concern (flagged as red)

As per with flooding, WDC have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' against but yet again, very little detail for a site with a status of 'chosen'.

However as the report acknowledges, clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

Government guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states:

'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'.

I object on the grounds of WDC have selected a 'chosen site' having already acknowledged the risk associated with close proximity to a sewage works, river and motorway by flagging this criteria as a red. However, no detail has been provided on how these concerns can be mitigated against so it clearly makes the site unsuitable for the traveller community who then use the site.

Furthermore, proximity to the M40 must be an important factor because when considering alternative sites (WDC Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments, August 2014) along the M40 corridor, WDC advised that there are severe noise issues within this area which could not be overcome in a way that may be possible for conventional houses.

Local Economy
In the WDC Sustainability Assessment, it identified that Economy was flagged as an uncertain (?).

Having consulted with the owners of Tournament Fields, they have made their feeling very clear that a G&T site in such close proximity to Tournament Fields would have a detrimental effect on prospective businesses considering Tournament Fields for office space.

As a result I am aware that Tournament Fields have objected to the proposed G&T site.

Whilst we may be slowly moving out of recession, the addition of a G&T site in such close proximity to what WDC's Chief Executive has called "Warwick's Premier Employment Site", can only have a negative effect on attracting local business to Tournament Fields.

I therefore object on the basis that a G&T site can only have a negative effect on the local economy.

However, WDC may place the location of a G&T site ahead of employment in terms of importance?

Local Community
The fact remains that of the 20 or so sites that have been consulted upon, the 'chosen' Stratford Road G&T site is closer to a large existing residential community than any other site assessed throughout this process (exception being Hampton Road GT12).

One of the key criteria used to assess G&T sites, is "Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community".

Taking this into consideration, my objection on these grounds is influenced by over 400 signatures have been collected by Chase Meadow Residents Association in objection to the G&T site off Stratford Road on planning grounds. This does not include additional residents contacting you to object directly but, does include residents of The Peacocks and Longbridge village who will be most affected by the disturbance, noise and traffic from the residents of such a large permanent G&T site.

Surely the volume and strength of opinion on this matter has to be taken into consideration, when assessing the suitability of a G&T site?