5. Policy Background

A new approach should be to integrate travellers into the community by allowing/building sites within the new development zones of housing/commerical land with sensity design/planning at the same time the public services required by them can be built into the new development.
There are no safe guards that these proposed sites will not be in the future sold off/built on as residential land especailly as it has been said that they could be owner occupied.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find below my various representations with regard to the proposed site options.

In line with the report I wish to make representations on a number of points as detailed below.

1. Introduction

No comment

2. Background

No comment

3. Who are Gypsies and Travellers?

No comment

4. What are the Issues?

No comment

5. Policy Background

SUPPORT

National policy is correct in advocating that (1) local planning authorities work together to identify sites and (2) that decision-taking protects Green Belt from inappropriate development and makes enforcement more effective.

On Point (1) it is therefore extremely worrying that Warwick District Council (WDC) is no longer working with other authorities to consider plans on a cross-authority basis, which it has a duty to do under the 2011 Localism Act. On point (2) WDC makes no distinction between Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites in its policy criteria so again contradicts national policy.

6. Evidence Base

No comment

7. Local Plan Requirements

OBJECT

The policy criteria listed by WDC are sensible.

However they omit crucial aspects of national guidance including (1) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development and (2) sites must be in appropriate locations. Why?

There is also the fact that WDC is no longer working on a cross-authority basis to provide sites. Again, why when much of WDC is covered by Green Belt (80%)? Surely by definition travellers are nomadic and the requirement for pitches should not be restricted to Warwick District?

8. Identification of Potential Sites

OBJECT

Section 8.1 is inadequate. WDC should list all sites within it's ownership and explain why it considers each site to be unacceptable.

Section 8.3, in which WDC is seeking to identify sites itself is a total dereliction of its duty under the 2011 Localism Act. WDC contains a high proportion of Green Belt and the Council should be looking to share supply of sites in appropriate locations with other authorities.

Site listing criteria should distinguish first whether locations are appropriate according to national and local planning policy. This is a planning document and land ownership (and willingness to sell) should not be a concern due to CPO powers.

9. Sites for consideration and comment
10. Table of Sites

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre, Siskin Drive

No Comment

GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425

No comment

GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

No comment

GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

No comment

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm

No comment

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm

No comment

GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road

No comment

GT08 Depot to the west side of Cubbington Hill Farm

No comment

GT09 Land to the north east of M40

No comment

GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

No comment

GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

No comment

GT12 Land north and west of Westham Lane (area of search)

No comment

GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale

OBJECT

Kites Nest Lane, Beausale is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is a greenfield site in the open countryside within the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Adopting it as a possible site would legitimise the long-running unauthorised applications to impose this illegal use at this site. WDC has rightly objected to such applications (although achieved nothing in removing the illegal settlement) and allowing development through this process would set an extremely damaging precedent in this and other areas that will attract significant public disapproval. National policy supports effective enforcement against unauthorised developments.

3. Access to local services is limited.

4. Its rural location means that this use cannot be integrated in the landscape without harming the character and amenity of the area in terms of aesthetic appearance and noise.

GT14 Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey

No comment

GT15 Land east of Europa Way

No comment

GT16 Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford (small site)

No comment

GT17 Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT18 Service area east of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT19 Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm

OBJECT

Land at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is in the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.

3. It is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal running locally between Warwick and Hatton offering views of Warwick Castle and St Nicholas Church.

As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.

The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.

As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.

This is a very popular towpath for boaters, walkers, runners and cyclists alike whose amenity will be greatly impacted by the occupation/development of this site.

Its location will further impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.

4. The site may be prone to flooding due to its location next to a water network.

GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40

No comment

Do you have any other suggestions for land within this district that you think would be suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site?

No comment

I look forward to receiving your comments and trust that the Council will make a well informed and well researched decision when it comes to sites to be considered in greater detail.

I wish to register my great concern about the plan as set out in your consultation document for the following reasons 1. I find the study conducted by Salford Universary to be lacking in rigour. The evidence provided to be circumstantial and without supporting evidence. Sweeping assumptions have been made about numbers.
2. The sites chosen have been made without looking carefully as to whether they are truly suitable and include landfill sites, sites next to busy main roads, sites well away from the amenities required to make the sites acceptable.
3 Sites are not going to be managed by the council, there is no protection for those living near the sites. What studies of the effect of sites on local populations have been conulted. I have experience of living in the same parish as an official site, not Warwickshire, the effects were not pleasant both from crime increase, litter and hygiene 4. I do not agree with one section of the population being afforded rights not granted to others. I think true integration is better than isolation. You cannot opt out of the way a society lives to live ones own way and still expect the same amenities. We all have to pay rates and taxes to maintain the fabric of society, I don't see why i should have to pay for those who choose not to contribute.

Dear Dave

Warwick Local Plan consultation - Duty to Cooperate

Thank you for consulting us on a number of documents. Please note that this letter has not yet been formally endorsed by Members, I will confirm for you in due course as this happens.

Revised Development Strategy

We welcome the recognition that the interim housing target is subject to change as a result of the joint SHMA and Duty to Cooperate. We have no comments to make as regards the locations that you are considering for large scale site allocations, notably for housing development. I am sure that we will agree that the scale and location of housing provision is a strategic issue, and we intend to come to a formal agreement between us (including the wider housing market area) in due course following publication of the joint SHMA. We wonder whether the windfall sites allowance is optimistic, given the 'policy on' trend, but anticipate this issue being resolved following the joint SHMA. We do not anticipate any significant direct impact on the infrastructure of Coventry to result from any of your proposed site allocations.

We may wish to consider the relationship between the committed employment schemes of Friargate in Coventry City Centre, Warwickshire Gateway, and the proposed office allocation at Thickthorn, Kenilworth.

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers

The approach being taken, to seek to accommodate the entire projected need for permanent and transit sites, is welcomed as the most responsible way forward. It is not clear to us whether it is intended that a 6-8 pitch, or 12 pitches, be provided on transit site/s.

We have no comments to make with respect to the specific sites that you are considering.

Planning policy for houses in multiple occupation and student accommodation

We note that a substantial number of students attending University of Warwick in particular reside in Warwick District, and further that there are concentrations of shared student housing in south Leamington. You may be aware that we are currently undertaking a rigorous evidence gathering exercise, including evidence from the University of Warwick, about this issue. We note the existence of an "Article 4 Direction" relating to HMO's in the south of Leamington, and have no evidence of any adverse impact of that on Coventry.

The proposed policy criteria set out appear to us to be appropriate and reasonable, and therefore raise no objection.

We look forward to continuing to work together to resolve strategic issues, to our mutual benefit. Should you have any queries, or wish to discuss the content of this letter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regarding the new local plan, there are various concerns I have with the plan itself and with how the plan itself has been presented to the local people of Warwick. My objections and concerns are as follows:

Firstly, as a resident of the Chase Meadow estate since 2005, we already live near a busy motorway junction with the obvious additional through traffic that comes with such nearby infrastructure. Since the initial link road was opened (linking up with the A429) we noticed a growth in traffic along Purser Drive, therefore also impacting upon the junction with Hampton Road. Thus, surely the proposed plan for a travellers' site will impact further on this traffic issue and then with the new link road we will see even more vehicles using these significant roads. As a parent with young children this is obviously a concern - we chose to live away from a main road and don't wish to see our estate roads become busier still. Furthermore, illogically, your own audit on sustainability queried the sense of placing the travellers near these roads with such significant usage already both in terms of how it would affect the families being placed on these proposed sites (who presumably would hope for quieter area suitable for children to be safe) and regarding the already heavy vehicular usage so this begs the question regarding the issue of road safety alone whether the proposed sites are in sensible locations for all concerned parties.

Another concern for me is with the flood plain issue, the proposed travellers' Hampton Road site is partially in the flood plain. Again the logic of this choice stuns me; in this time of increased nationalised flooding we should all be protecting our flood plains and ensuring they are strictly 'off limits' yet the proposed Hampton Road site would allow an area of this land to be changed in order to stand vehicles on for long periods of time - obviously this is going to affect the land's ability to absorb water! Once again this decision would impact upon the local residents of this area and the travellers who would be able to live there. How is an increased risk of flooding fair to the travellers family groups that would utilise this site? In addition to this, as someone who is deeply interested in sustainability of our eco-system, the fact that other sites are near to Green Belt areas worries me. These Green Belt areas are designated for a reason...they should not have building occurring nearby or have regular moving vehicles positioned near either. In my view all kinds of wildlife need to be effectively protected not merely in name only and therefore such proposed sites should not be so close to these areas of Green Belt land. There are other sites that could be chosen that will not negatively impact upon the wildlife that needs careful and watchful protection.

Lastly, it saddens me that this plan has not been effectively proposed or discussed in public. Being committed to local as well as national political discussion is important to ensure a healthy democracy yet it really feels as if the plan has been kept hidden or not discussed as openly as it could have been. In the public meetings held at Aylesford School and Warwick School, many councillors that sat around the table initially sorting out the various aspects of the local plan in its infancy- from road closures to new housing needs and proposed travellers' sites- were not present. Surely this suggests that they did not want to confront the potential concerns/issues that different groups within the Warwick District might need to clarify? Also, the lack of representation by the councillors that put forward the plan itself creates a degree of cynicism regarding the choices made about the proposed new housing and traveller sites. This concerns me and considering the bigger picture, it does not engender a positive co-existence between different community groups which normally I would say is one of the many things I love about living in Warwick (and I have lived in other counties in England where I haven't necessarily felt as harmonised a feeling between local and tourists or within the various communities living within the area itself). Adding to my personal view here, this current discord challenges one of the pre-requisites of just one aspect of the plan - the placing of the Traveller Sites -because in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites it requires that a positive co-existence should be promoted through the proposals and discussion of such sites but this is not necessarily the case currently - this could have been prevented through a more effective presentation of the local plan.