Response to public consultation on proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Land at Stratford Road, Warwick

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the land mentioned above being allocated and used as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site. I set out my reasons below under several headings, but first of all I wish to inform you of my complete dissatisfaction with the consultation process you have run.

First of all, I only heard of the proposed location of a Gypsy and Traveller site on Stratford Road when the Chase Meadow Residents' Association put a flyer through my door. I find it incredible Warwick District Council didn't see it appropriate to inform the owners of houses most closely located to the proposed site, and left it up to volunteers. From the off, it seems like WDC has tried to keep the proposed location quiet to ensure as little objection as possible.

Secondly, I find the inclusion of Stratford Road in the final short list of three preferred sites as completely against due process. It was not on the original list of c.20 sites (that I reviewed when I bought my house close to the Stratford Road), including it at the last minute highlights a lack of transparency and logic in the site selection process. It suggests to me desperation to find somewhere (anywhere) to include in the Local Plan. When you are considering places for people to live, you should not rush and make compromises - you should select the most appropriate sites, and I believe because the selection process has been so chaotic and changeable, it can't result in an optimal site selection.

WDC has explained that the reason it was included at the last minute was because Severn Trent said they could reduce the cordon sanitaire, as part of a wider employment development. The proposed location of the Gypsy and Traveller site is not in the cordon sanitaire, so that is not the reason why it has now been included - please can you explain exactly why it has been shoe-horned in as a final preferred option at the last minute despite it being considered inappropriate at the previous shortlisting stage.

Thirdly, I think the information that you have provided the public as part of the consultation process has been inadequate, incomplete and does not provide evidence of a compelling reason why the site is considered appropriate by WDC (never mind a preferred option).

In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has simply provided no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas the WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).

Also - I found it very hard to find the different documents on the website. I see you eventually (half way through the consultation period) put them all in one place for easy access, but before this I had to trawl through various web pages and open many document before I could find things like the third party reports.

Finally, engagement with the public (in my opinion) has been really poor. I attended one of the drop-in sessions (for which I had to leave work early - not a convenient time) at which I had to queue for a long time to speak to anyone from WDC, and when I did ask my questions it was clear that the WDC representative did not have an in depth knowledge of the proposal for Stratford Road. Given WDC refused to attend the public meeting organised by Chase Meadows Residents' Association, the drop in session was the only chance I had to discuss the proposal - and it was wholly inadequate. I have obtained more information from the Chase Meadow Residents' Association than the WDC - which is disgusting given they are volunteers and the staff at WDC are paid to serve the public. I also understand that misleading information was handed out during the drop-in sessions, related to Severn Trent Water's role in the Gypsy and Traveller site - which, to me, just goes to show what a poorly organised consultation process it has been and suggests to me that WDC are not taking the issue at hand and the tax paying public seriously.

Chris White MP roundly criticised the lack of engagement by WDC during the consultation process - so I genuinely don't believe you can consider that the public have been properly consulted, and therefore cannot recommend Stratford Road is included in the Warwick Local Plan at least until an appropriate consultation process has been run.

Reasons for objection to the site:

Suitability of site as a place to live
The site in question is unsuitable for people to live (regardless of who the people are) and I believe that if WDC elects to place Gypsies/Travellers there, they are essentially treating this community as second class, which is atrocious and would bring shame upon WDC and Warwick in general. House builders would not build houses there, as they would know the settled community would not buy them - so forcing Gypsies/Travellers to live there is simply wrong. I'm sure you will say that you have had interest from the Gypsy/Traveller community in the site and they would choose to live there on their own free will - but they would have no choice. If a Gypsy/Traveller family wanted to settle into a permanent site in Warwick - they would have to go wherever the sites are, so indirectly you are forcing them to live there.

The site is unsuitable for many reasons:
* It is on a Flood Zone (2 and 3). Government guidance says you shouldn't locate Gypsy/Traveller sites on flood zones. The report you have released in relation to this suggests extensive work is required to mitigate the flood risk, but that further work is required to assess the extent of the risk and investigate whether the mitigations are actually possible. You should not select the site as a preferred option for the Local Plan until all necessary investigations have taken place and the risk, the feasibility of required mitigations and the cost thereof are all fully understood.
* It is next to a sewage works. Again, government guidance states Gypsy/Traveller sites shouldn't be located next to industrial/sewage sites. I can smell the works from my house, which is at least 10 times further away than the proposed Gypsy/Traveller site so the smell for the residents would be awful. I can't believe you would consider that acceptable.
* It is very close to the M40. The emissions from the cars would surely make the air quality very poor, and given there are likely to be children living on the site - you would be putting the health of Gypsy/Traveller families at risk, who already statistically have shorter life expectancies than average - you should be trying to improve their health, not make it worse.
* The noise from the M40 is also constant and significant. Again, I can hear the motorway at all times of the day from my house, which is much further away than the proposed site. Given caravans/mobile homes have less sound proofing than brick built houses, the noise would be unbearable. I have read the noise report you had commissioned, which seems to say that the noise levels for the site are above acceptable levels. It also states that the study was rushed, so I believe a thorough and complete study is required before the site can be responsibility included in the Local Plan by WDC.
* Finally, the location of the site is surrounded by things unsafe for children: the M40, sewage works, the River Avon and Stratford Road. Protecting the site from all of these things would be expensive and would isolate the community. I think it would feel like WDC was trying to hide Gypsies/Travellers away in a corner where nobody else would live, impeding integration with the settled community.

Land owner support
I have copies of emails from both Severn Trent and David Webb, the two owners of the land apart from WDC, both stating they are against their land being used for a Gypsy and Traveller site, therefore a compulsory purchase order would be required. This would be an expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming process which would stall the Local Plan and waste taxpayers' money. I hope that WDC will choose an alternative site that does not require a CPO and is therefore easier and quicker to deliver.

Access
As the land owners are against the site, how will the Gypsy and Traveller families access the land? Severn Trent and the owner of the farm track would presumably not allow access. No mention of the plans for access is made in the consultation documents released by WDC. Given this is such a fundamental issue, WDC should surely provide detailed and proven access plans before the site can be included in the Local Plan. It would be embarrassing for Warwick if our Local Plan is rejected as we selected a plot of inaccessible land for a Gypsy/Traveller site.

I understand that the farm track leading to the land, even if access is given by the owner, is too narrow for emergency vehicles, is in a poor state and is therefore not suitable for large/heavy mobile homes to travel along, according to government guidance. The council rubbish collection services refuse to go down the track to collect bins from the farm down the track, so residents have to walk the bins all the way up to the main road. Surely access is therefore unsuitable.

Access to the site would also require turning off Stratford Road, which is extremely busy during rush hour and fast moving (being just off the motorway) during other times. Having large, slow moving vehicles turning into a very narrow road at a sharp angle on a bend would be dangerous and would add to traffic issues.

Impact on economy
In the Council's own Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all.

The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. When this was first opened almost 10 years ago it was to be promoted as 'Warwickshire's Premier Business Park' with high hopes for what it would do for the long-term economic growth of the local Warwick economy. Currently Tournament Fields is still advertising '700,000 sq. ft available' and a significant portion of the site remains undeveloped.

Siting a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site opposite this prestigious development is already generating a huge amount of local controversy and opposition and this sort of publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market Tournament Fields to new businesses. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the new site could suppress potential demand still further.

Given creating and keeping jobs in Warwick is so important for the local economy - I can't believe you would even think about even potentially damaging the attractiveness of Warwick as a place to locate businesses.