8. Identification of Potential Sites

I have an interest in opposing the proposed new sites in two parts of the District as I own a property in Barford and also own a property in Hatton and would be directly affected by the proposed sites in Barford, Budbrooke and Beausale.

My experience of Gypsies has been entirely negative, having been subjected to them walking onto my property, going into back gardens, raking through skips and generally poking around looking for scrap metal to steal. When challenged they become abusive and on one occasion I was assaulted, resulting in the Police being called.

If the Council had decided simply to blight property values across the District it could not have done a more effective job than by designating these many sites for consultation. All houses up to a mile from the proposed sites are currently unsaleable until a decision is made.

Two or three isolated, potential sites should have been identified rather than the scattergun approach which has been taken which has caused such damage.

I know that the Council has a duty to make provision for a number of pitches, but traveller rights always seem to "trump" those of the settled Community who actually pay for all of the Council services and cannot avoid HMRC.

It is completely unacceptable to parachute this group of people with very different values into settled Communities, thereby adversely affecting the lives of many tax-payers for the convenience of these groups. Let us not shy away from the adverse effect that they always have on neighbours.

As provision must be made for them then locate it well away from existing communities and provide the facilities that are needed, at that location. Purchase at full market value, plus removal expenses, all nearby properties where the owners wish to move away, or compensate them properly for loss of value if they choose to stay.

In any event, speed up this process to minimise and bring to a halt the state of "limbo" into which the Council has plunged large numbers of people.

As I understand that these objections are published I do not wish my address to be available publicly but can be contacted on this e mail address.

I would Like to object to the proposed traveller sites i feel there are to many proposed in such a small area,i cant believe the distance between these sites
are uniform throughout the borough.We attended one of the meetings & was horrified by the size of these proposed sites if you have a three caravan site then that's what they should have,
not have more room for visitors or family,when my family come to visit me they have to stop in the local hotel because we have no spare rooms,if you give these sites more room than needed
they will have caravans using this space pernament thus causing problems with the council trying to enforce the size of site.
We also have a problem with rent , i feel they should pay a fare rent ,they should pay council tax, i also cant see why they should receive priority local school places in a already over subscribed primary school area.

I totally disagree with the proposals for so called traveller's community within the 2013 plan.

From the Councils own information:-

"There are four sites in total, currently run by local authorities in Warwickshire. There are also many private sites within the county. "
These sites are sufficient to serve the current and future needs of the official traveller community identified as being within the Warwickshire area.
Thus there is no need for further sites for true travellers and all current legal requirements are being met.

Identifying more sites is not therefore necessary but purely a political plan

True travellers, as their name implies, travel, and they do. The problems with the current population of false travellers is that they do not want to travel but create their own fixed communities on green belt land and do it by law breaking, intimidation and all methods necessary including force and blackmail.

The law breakers should have already lost the right to be in any plan, but now the council have become complicit in their crimes and seem to be far worst than the original perpetrators.

The new sites that are being planned are for the group of travellers evicted from the illegal site identified as 13 on the consultation map. The 2013 plan is a blue print to assist and reward these illegal land developers who hide under the true traveller's legal cloak.

To save face, the Council wish to provide a suitable travellers site that they already have identified and can give planning permission to. However the site must NOT be site 13, as that was the illegal site from which the travellers have been evicted. There may be others in a similar situation.


The architects of the plan know the local population do not want the law breaking travellers developing non bricks and mortar sites within their communities, therefore the 2013 Plan and consultation communications / meetings are using blatant, tactical wording in presentation literature to promote inter community battles over sites.

Nobody wants a traveller's encampment. They know it means trouble, and the council know people will fight to remain Traveller free.

Thus we have a situation where:

"Outside consultants have reported"
( meaning the council are not taking any responsibility for what has been reported). The council could have simply used the Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments guidance notes, issued in 2007, to carry out the assessment themselves. However the Council would then not have been able to use the "not us, it's in the consultants report" (actual words spoken at a consultation) as an excuse.

"Within their report the consultants thank the Council for their support"
Of course the council supported the consultants, the consultants were told what the council wanted in the report and the consultants duly delivered - as all client requested consultant reports do.

"The need exists for permanent sites for the "old people" and "families with children"
What happened to these so-called Travellers buying houses to house themselves, and the associated costs, like the rest of society is obliged to do?

" 20 possible sites have been identified, we need 31 pitches, which shall we select?
This consultants report identifies that the need exists - now let's set community against community and have a particular attack on Barford which will have to defend itself. The arguments about which site to choose will therefore distract attention from the real discussion i.e. the need for any sites at all..

Very serious action will have to be taken in regard to the council's identification of sites and the legality of how the sites were identified and put into the public domain. The report said that some were council sites and others private. The councils own rules prohibit spending on new social housing and thus cannot finance new camp sites for renting tor travellers.

At the consultation it was said that many were picked out of the air by the planning office because they met some of the requirements on the planning department's list. Many private land owners had no idea the council were planning to use their land and totally object to the proposals.

The planning officer at the consultation freely admitted many of the sites have been eliminated and she implied that the ones required have already been chosen.

We have all now seen that the Council and its Planning Department have developed this plan to fight the tax paying public and to make their own lives simpler.


The consultations are thus a sham.


Opposition action must be taken to have the traveller element of the 2013 Plan withdrawn in total and not just to identify reasons for individual sites' unsuitability. To only identify unsuitable sites will just play into the political manipulators hands..

Planning manipulation should not be used to legalize the illegal acts. Travellers that persist in breaking the planning laws should end up in jail or subject to prohibitive fines. They should not be rewarded by a state funded holiday camp site. I am sure the Council would not hesitate to refuse any kind of planning permission if I wanted to carve up a piece of greenbelt for a clean, private house, but it is apparently acceptable to have an unsightly camp for people who do not have any input into paying for facilities, or any respect for the areas they choose to occupy.

I have a few concerns about the proposed local plan! Firstly - the impact on house prices in the area! I understand that affordable housing for people is important, however, having only recently brought a house in Bishops Tachbrook, I have concerns that the proposed large development South of Leamington and, to a larger extent, the proposed Gypsy and traveller sites will mean a increase in crime and so lead to a drop in house prices and a increase in home insurance! This would mean we would be paying more for our house than its worth therefore stopping us from moving if our standard of living drops due to said increase in crime and over population of the area! Secondly the increase in housing would mean at least 12000 more cars on the road as most households have at least 2 cars! I find it impossible to see how a road network that already struggles can cope even if (as has been proposed) the junctions are improved and some roads turned into dual carriage ways. Also all the talk of Net migration increasing is a poor argument as the only reason net migration would increase is if you build the houses! Urban sprawl will destroy what many love about this country which is the open countryside and nature! How much wildlife will be destroyed by this OVERDEVELOPMENT? Why does the development need to be so concentrated in one area?

It seems the council is more interested in money and people who don't live in the area rather than those already here!

Please listen to the people who already live and work in the area and voted councillors in!

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): The Coalition Government has taken a series of steps to ensure fair play in the planning system. We have tackled the abuse of planning rules by a small minority, abolished top-down targets, increased protection of the Green Belt and aligned the planning system for traveller sites with that for settled housing. A more detailed list of measures we have taken is outlined in my answer of 25 April 2013, Official Report, Column 1132W.

Protecting the Green Belt

Our policy document, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that planning decisions should protect Green Belt land from such inappropriate development.

As set out in that document and in March 2012's National Planning Policy Framework, inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Having considered recent planning decisions by councils and the Planning Inspectorate, it has become apparent that, in some cases, the Green Belt is not always being given the sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of Ministers.

The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on its facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Secretary of State wishes to give particular scrutiny to traveller site appeals in the Green Belt, so that he can consider the extent to which Planning Policy for Traveller Sites is meeting this Government's clear policy intentions. To this end he is hereby revising the appeals recovery criteria issued on 30 June 2008 and will consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the Green Belt.

For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean that all such appeals will be recovered, but that the Secretary of State will likely recover a number of appeals in order to test the relevant policies at national level. The Secretary of State will apply this criteria for a period of six months, after which it will be reviewed.

Revoking "Equality and diversity in planning"

Under the last Administration's flawed rules, a sense of unfairness was embedded in the planning system. Unauthorised developments created tensions between travellers and the settled population, whilst some community groups seemingly were given favoured treatment. That approach has harmed community cohesion. We want to redress the balance and put fairness back into local communities.

I appreciate that there is ongoing concern, as reflected by some Hon Members recently proposing a Private Member's Bill on this issue.

I can announce today that the Government is cancelling the last Administration's practice guidance "Diversity and Equality in Planning" which was issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005.

This guidance is outdated, excessive in length (at 186 pages), and sends unhelpful signals about the planning process. For example, the document:

* Fails to strike the correct balance between the spatial impact of a planning proposal and the background of the applicant in considering a planning application.
* Encourages monitoring of local residents' private lives - such as through intrusive lifestyle/diversity surveys.
* Promotes the excessive use of Equality Impact Assessments, which are an expensive and bureaucratic burden on the public sector.
* Tells councils to translate into foreign language, which undermines integration by discouraging people from learning English, weakens community cohesion and a common British identity, and wastes taxpayers' money.

As part of our wider consolidation of practice guidance, we do not intend to replace it.

The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that councils should plan to provide wide choice of high quality homes based on the needs of their local community. Councils should simply use their common sense in light of prevailing legislation, planning policy and material considerations.

I hope this will send a positive message about treating all members of the community with respect and with due process, and that this Government is restoring a proper sense of fairness to the planning system.

I am responding as a resident in Warwick District.

I trust that this response will suffice, despite the response forms suggesting a separate response is necessary for each proposed site.

1 - Strategic / Site-wide comments

a - Required Pitch Numbers
I remain highly sceptical and unconvinced by your evidence base for the required number of permanent pitches in WDC. The timing of the surveys was in the summer during the travelling season (the population in WDC at that time was not necessarily representative). The surveys were carried out by members of the travelling community on the travelling community. I suggest House builders would not be asked to interview house builders about how many houses they would like to build. I remain unconvinced that the Salford report provides a robust evidence base that fits with a national, logical and coordinated pattern of provision. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction against a previous inspector's findings. The massive shift from previous figures leaves me with no faith whatsoever in these figures.

b - Prematurity of the Consultation
The fact that sites are included in the consultation that quite clearly do not meet WDC's own criteria for selection suggests one of two things. Either officers are incapable of applying a simple set of criteria to sieve sites to rule out the totally inappropriate or those that do not meet the minimum requirements (which I am sure is not true), or the first sieve / down-selection has not yet been carried out in which case, the consultation is premature and is causing a huge amount of angst and worry unnecessarily.

c - Green Belt
I think it is unfortunate that the Local Plan is suggesting so much development south of Leamington and Warwick. WDC is failing a large number of its residents by not challenging the out-dated Green Belt designation to the north. It dates from a time when there was far less development pressure and is not fit for purpose today as a policy of restraint. The "exceptional circumstances" are the unprecedented development pressure on the district at the moment. I urge the council to review the green belt boundaries to the north of our district. You will find plenty of sites ripe for development without harming the aims and objectives of this regional green belt. To my mind by simply pushing all development to the south, WDC is delivering banal and crass spatial planning and failing in its duties to future generations.

2 - Site-Specific Comments.

GT6 - A prominent site occupying open countryside and adjoining the Castle Park. The site acts as an open buffer between possible new housing development along Banbury Road and land to the south and west. The site is excluded from the Local Plan for residential development due to its openness. The same logic holds for any built development including travellers and Gypsies. Development would have an adverse impact on the rural character by introducing urbanising influences and probable decrease in the condition of the landscape.
The site is on an historic tip.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT9 - This site occupies a prominent, elevated and sloping site. The visual influence of development on this site would be widespread. The site would have a distinct urbanising effect. This is to all intents and purposes open countryside and for any other development would not be considered. Why is it even considered here? Development would cause distinct harm to the character of the area, it is isolated from services, would impact on the setting of Greys Mallory.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT12 - I really struggle with this site and how it comes to be included in the consultation. It occupies open countryside on the iconic river floodplain of the River Avon. It comprises a distinctive meander in the one landscape feature that defines the Warwickshire Countryside. The site is remote enough from settlements to be perceived as urbanisation in open countryside. Access to the site if off the A429 on a sweeping 60mph stretch. Since the (welcomed) construction of the bypass, there have been a number of accidents involving vehicles joining and leaving the road including one very unfortunate recent fatality. In addition, everyone who uses the junctions into Barford has witnessed or been involved in countless near misses. The accidents will keep on coming. We are not particularly well served by public transport, nor doctors in the village. Our school is full to bursting. It is a small community school that excels for our children. A transient, part time element would not be beneficial.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped. In particular, road safety and landscape character.

GT 16 - I refer to my prematurity point above. Inclusion of this site in a public consultation seriously undermines the credibility of WDC. It brings into doubt the seriousness of the other sites or the intellectual rigour with which this process is being carried out....This site is a balancing pond / flood compensation feature. Enough said.

After all that, I appreciate that this is a very difficult exercise. I hope the right answer prevails

I attended the meeting at Aylesford School on the 15 July regarding the proposed location of the gypsy traveller sites. I understand that sites are needed for this particular group but am at a loss as to why there are so many of these proposed sites in a very close location to one another ie South of Warwick.

It has been proposed that South of Warwick/Whitnash is to undergo extensive building of 3195 new homes in the new few years, putting a huge amount of pressure on roads, schools, GP's, and Hospitals within the local areas. Great pains were taken at the meeting to inform the members of the public that the traveller sites were listed because they are not in "greenbelt land", but the land in question, such as Warwick Racecourse is very valuable to the community and is a real asset to the town.

I feel that the sites should be more fairly distributed throughout the Warwick District, even if that means incorporating some "green belt land", so that the facilities needed, ie schools etc could be more easily provided.

Spreading the sites out would be much better for the settled and gypsy communities, as condensing them in just one part of Warwickshire could cause a lot of ill feeling and pressure on already pushed to the brink services.

Yours faithfully

I hope you received my email that I sent yesterday evening concerning additional information that I wished to be added to my original objection.

In this second email, I would be grateful if you could answer the questions below, which relate to the process by which the Gypsy Traveller Sites (specifically GT03 and GT04) were chosen to be included in the WDC document.
If you feel unable to answer any of the questions, then please consider this email to be a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the WDC document, you include a number of points from the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012 document. The questions below relate to those guidance points.

1. "to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies"
Please would you supply dates and details of meetings and or discussions that were held with officers of Stratford District Council where land being considered as Gypsy/Traveller sites was discussed.
2. "for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment"
Please can you provide evidence of where the protection of local amenities and local environment was considered in relation to sites GT03 and GT04.
3. "to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure"
Bearing in mind the fact that there nearest education and health facilities to GT03 and GT04 are in excess of 1.6 miles and to welfare and work facilities over 6 miles, what criteria did the council use to determine that GT03 and GT04 satisfied not only the national guidelines above but also their own which stated "** Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport; ?
4.
The following questions relate to the WDC document guidelines.
1. ** Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding;
Bearing in mind GT03 and GT04 are at or near flood plains, what criteria were used to determine that the sites were not at risk of flooding? Was reference ever made to Dept. of the Environment flood risk mapping? Please would you provide documentary evidence of any consideration given to this prior to the inclusion of GT03 and GT04?
2. ** Safe access to the road network
GT03 and GT04 are both located on a high accident risk commuter route. What criteria were used to determine if both sites provided Safe Access to the road network?
3. ** Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
Chesterton Windmill is, according to WCC, "a famous feature of the Warwickshire countryside". The site is visited by many people as it provides panoramic views over the Warwickshire countryside? What criteria were used by WDC to determine that GT03 and GT04 did not contravene the above objective?
4. ** avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
In relation to GT03 and GT04, what discussions were held between WDC and WCC Education Dept. concerning the ability of Harbury school to cope with the increased pupil numbers that would result from the sites' adoption? Also, what discussions were held between WDC and either the Primary Care Trust or its replacement (Clinical Commissioning Group) regarding the ability of Harbury Surgery to accommodate increased patient numbers?
WDC Document Section 8
5. The WDC document paragraph 8.1 states that consideration was given to its own (WDC) land holdings. But none were found to be suitable. Please could you provide the criteria and weightings given to any individual criterion that led to the council decision that none of its own land was suitable? I am particularly interested in the point about being surrounded by "residential development" as I believe that one objective of permanent gypsy traveller sites was integration. Was consideration given to "brown field" sites within WDC. If so, what were they and what criteria were used that determined their unsuitability?
6. Paragraph 8.3 also says that the council ATTEMPTED to work with other councils. Would you provide evidence of such attempts, especially in relation to sites GT03 and GT04?

After reading with trepidation about the huge housing developments proposed for the South Leamington area, the Residents / Rate Payers and Electorate and are now being told to expect 10 permanent Traveller sites in what can only be see as an over the top planning action by the elected councillors of WDC!
Most of the sites appear to be unsuitable for Travellers and far to large for 15 families; a 1/4 of an Acre per family, I only wish my children could have grown up with a full sized football pitch to play on!

The sites proposed at locations 3,4,5,6,9,10,15 are remote from any main amenities, such as shops bus routes and very little in the way of pedestrian access. Also accessing onto very busy A & B roads that carry high volumes of rush hour traffic, including school traffic into Warwick each week day. Some of the sites would result in employment loss i.e. Fosse Exhibition centre & Guide Dogs Breeding Centre. Others sites would impinge on the local historic views e.g. approach to Warwick & Chesterton Windmill, others are prone to winter flooding e.g. Tachbrook, all would put a strain on local middle schools and Doctors Surgeries.
Yes we do worry about increased crime and falling house prices, so the way to limit this is to spread the load more evenly across the district. There must be more suitable locations North, East & West of the Town? But apart from the one site proposal in Cubbington North Leamington is unscathed yet again, because the proposed housing developments have also passed it by? The residents in South Leamington area can only be left to wonder how many serving councillors live it the seemingly protected North Leamington area???
But take heed, councillors are employed because you were elected by the local voters, but if these proposals go through then at the next local election you wont be getting too many votes from South of the River! You were elected to benefit all of the local areas not damage some and favour others.............................. If the Government is bullying you into this Traveller site fiasco then SPREAD THE LOAD FAIRLY AND EVENLY thought the district!

From a very concerned local resident and rate payer over the past 39 years.

Dear Sir/Madam

My apologies for sending this as two emails, I had not realised that responses on the draft gypsy and traveller site consultation were to be sent to the same email address as general comments on the new local plan.

As explained in my earlier email, I hope you will still consider this feedback even though it has been submitted after the deadline. I am currently visiting family in Finland and have had to cope with two unexpected collapses of my father this afternoon which necessarily distracted me from responding before the deadline. I did, however, want to share my thoughts on the new local plan hence sending this email. Please would you confirm whether you will take my email into consideration as part of the new local plan consultation.

I understand that the proposed gypsy and traveller sites include a number in the environs of Bishops Tachbrook (sites 5, 6, 9, 15, 3 and 10). I fail to see how these sites meet with the criteria required for candidate sites, for example being able to integrate a permanent site into the landscape without harming the character of the area, convenient access to public transport, providing safe access to the road network, placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services and avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance. All these sites are too remote from major settlement areas.

The Bishops Tachbrook area has a strong rural character that must be preserved. The village is already being compromised by traffic that runs through it as a rat run to the M40. As outlined in my earlier email there are already road safety issues in the village so any new settlement (of any type) that increases the traffic through the village (to the motorway or to Leamington Spa) should be avoided. The public transport service is very limited so alternative options are not practical and many of the proposed sites do not offer pedestrian access so inhabitants will inevitably resort to using cars.

My recommendation is that sites which are closer to existing services (e.g. GP services and village schools) that could accommodate the additional demand should be sought and that the impact on the local rural road network be seriously considered. Any sites which will compromise the rural character of immediate area, specifically those listed above, should be excluded from the list of proposed sites. I appreciate this means that more rurally based councils will find it harder to find appropriate sites for gypsies and travellers, however this does not mean that the natural environment and character of the areas within its care should be compromised.

General Observations

WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses. WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

Dear sir/madam

I write regarding the proposed location of gypsy and traveler sites in warwickshire, as outlined in the new local plan.

Points made on government guidance are referenced from "Standard Note - Gypsies and Travellers: campsites and trespass - id: SN/SC/1127 published by House of Commons Library, author Christopher Barclay - available online (www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01127.pdf)

Government advice states "A Gypsy camp site is no longer appropriate development within the Green Belt." The proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Baginton (G101 & G107) are innapropriate development in the green belt.

The noise generated from the plains flying more or less directly overhead until late at night, combined the noise and light from the airport and associated business park, combined with the smells in the vicinity of the sewage treatment works, will lead to a reduced quality of life for the residents at the proposed sites.

Government guidelines state planning should address under-provision. There are three traveler sites within a few miles of G101 & G107 - at siskin drive, brandon lane, and oxford road which already meet such provision. The proposed sites do not satisfy the local plan strategy of "distributing development across the district".

There is insufficient provision for local doctors, schools, or hospitals, and current facilities are already sufficiently overcrowded that the residents of Baginton have difficulty obtaining such services. This does not match the government guidelines that suitable accommodation "from which travelers can access education, health, welfare, and employment infrastructure".

The proposed site on stonly road is on private grenbelt land used by a local business. It is unacceptable to damage that business' ability to be profitable by forcing them to give up their land to a development.

The proposed site G101 is located in an area that will be used by the coventry and warwickshire gateway development. This development proposes to deliver many thousands of jobs by your own estimates, and would be of greater benefit to the entire community than its use as a gypsy and traveler site.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of warwick distrcit are preferable to G101 and G107 as they are not on green-belt land, have access to better facilities, would not have an adverse impact on local businesses, and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

The governments own statement is "to reduce tensions between settled and traveler communities in plan-making and planning decisions". After having many discussions with people affected locally, I can confirm that the manor in which the consultation has run has served to increase tensions between settled and traveller communities. I have heard many overt suggestions of intimidation and violence as a direct result of these discussions. (actions i personally neither support nor condone) I would strongly suggest further measures to be taken immediately in order to better inform local residents, in order to calm these tensions.

I am writing to you this morning to express my concerns and dissatisfaction regarding your proposals for Gypsy and Traveller Sites in and around the Warwick area - in particular, the proposed site on Hampton Road by the racecourse.

I am a resident in Warwick Chase estate, located extremely near to this proposed site. I have only recently moved into the area in the last year and have a small family (my daughter was born last October).

Whilst I'm extremely happy with the local facilities in terms of their close proximity and convenience, I can already see an impact on surrounding roads, Doctors and local facilities due to the large number of people moving into the area. This area has undergone significant development over the last few years and there is definitely an overburden on the area.

I'm particularly concerned regarding schools too - it won't be long before I send my daughter to school and I am already concerned about how difficult this may become due to the higher number of applicants.

I'm extremely concerned that allowing these sites will only exacerbate the issues I've just outlined. I believe the local infrastructure will simply not be able to support one or more of these sites and after reading your planning policy, this appears to be in direct conflict with the policy.

Also, the proposed site on Hampton Road is extremely close to green belt land and sits within part of the flood plain. I believe green belt land should be protected where possible and also, any further building work / hard standing within that area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain and put that area at further risk - severely impacting us local residents.

Taking all of these reasons into account, I strongly object to your proposals and would ask that you take serious thought in re-considering / reviewing your original proposals.

After having talked to many people I know living locally, I can assure you their sentiments are the same - there is an overriding feeling of strong objection and this is shared widely across the local area.

Consultation Response to New WDC Local Plan Preferred Options Paper

I am writing to object to the proposal for 12,300 houses in Warwick District and nearly 4,000 new houses in Warwick. In objecting I refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 12,300 been proposed which is higher than the 10,800 proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick Councillors asked that the proposed development should be equitably distributed over the District but half of the homes proposed in the new Local Plan are south of Warwick.
Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place.

The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. I do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done. Not all empty homes have been identified. New planning laws now allow unused office space to be converted to housing and his should be taken into account in the housing projections.

We have not been given information on where the 'missing' 6,000 homes are proposed to be built. Why not? You have stated at Aylesford School that this has not been decided yet. How can we make informed representations without the full facts being presented in the proposed new Local Plan?

The validity of your forecast projections of housing need has been seriously questioned. Evidence submitted by Cllr. Ray Bullen demonstrates that there is a 5 year housing land supply. The last 5 year housing land supply document is dated November 2012. It is out of date. The NPPF 153 says the " Local Plan .......can be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances". Therefore the out of date 5 year plan should be updated immediately to take account of those changing circumstances.

Research by Cllr. Ray Bullen shows that only 5,400 homes are necessary for local need which allows for moving in and out of the area based on what happened in last 10 years (births/deaths/migration). 12,300 includes economic growth but if jobs don't materialise unemployment will rise. Unemployment is low 1.6% currently. We need a homes/jobs balance. If we are looking to build housing you then have to match employment to housing. There appears to be no current evidence of a demand for employment development schemes. Employment land currently available cannot attract employers so cannot justify building 12,300 houses, e.g. the lack of interest in office space at Morrisons. Where will we find employment to match housing? The large office block plan at IBM is now being used for housing (windfall site).

The NPPF requires 'sustainable development'. The three criteria of sustainability are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. The development south of Warwick is not sustainable.

I believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Stratford-on-Avon is currently consulting on the possible provision of some 4,500 houses in Gaydon and Lighthorne and this would impact on the need for houses in Warwick District. Local authorities have a duty to co-operate but WDC have not had discussions as yet with SoA.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and I am objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. I would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

Stratford-on-Avon have said there are exceptional circumstances to develop on certain areas of Green Belt. Why doesn't WDC take same point of view? There is land available north of Leamington and in Kenilworth which is nearer to employment in Coventry and the Gateway.

Coalescence

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The current Local Plan states in para 9.11, "It is important to protect the areas of restraint from development proposals that could alter their predominantly open character. Their value and importance lies in their contribution to the structure and character of the urban area, providing open areas in and around towns and preserving open wedges that separate one urban area from the next." The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich and versatile agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including owls, uncommon woodpeckers, roe deer and badgers. This green space also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on! The NPPF 109 states "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
* protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
* recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
* minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological netwoerks that are more resilient to current and future pressures."

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102)

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. You have received photographic evidence of flooding from properties in Myton Crescent and the Malins. When the Warwick Technology Park was created, there were severe flooding problems in the adjacent Myton Gardens. The field donated to Myton school as a restricted covenant playing field has proved to be unusable because of water-logging, demonstrating on-going water-management problems. Even more relevant to the Malins and Myton Crescent was the severe flooding in 2007 caused by the re-orientation of the water run-off flows and the disturbance and removal of top soil from the Round Oak School playing fields behind Myton Crescent. It was only after threats to sue the County Council that remedial action was taken. This consisted of a bund to capture excess run-off and a pump situated in the north-west corner to return water uphill into the drain near the Round Oak School. This action has proved ineffective and inadequate as run-off water has periodically flowed into the gardens most recently in October 2012 when the water level reached was only a few inches below the level of the electricity sub-station situated between 26 Myton Crescent and 1 The Malins.

The field at the end of The Malins slopes upwards from The Malins and run-off water from adjacent fields above and to the right and behind also flows towards The Malins and Myton Crescent. When there is a downpour on saturated ground, water flows quickly down, fills up the lower parts of the field and collects in the gardens of nos. 26, 28 and 30 Myton Crescent, and overflows into the gardens of nos. 3 and 12 The Maslins and towards no. 1 The Malins and the electricity sub-station. There is little indication that the seriousness of this flooding is being taken into account.

Ignoring flood risk is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.

 
Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. Warwick Gates school and Chase Meadow play area never materialised but £1.4m of Chase Meadows developers' contribution was used instead for St. Nicholas Park remediation. They were then allowed to build more houses on the area allocated for sport/play area at CM. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Coventry Council should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries, evening clinics and Saturdays to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost. The public sewer discharges to Longbridge Water Treatment Works. Severn Trent currently transport sewage from Longbridge to Coventry by tanker several times a day. They do not have the capacity now to deal with sewage at the Longbridge site and it is inconceivable how they will cope with sewage from another 4,000 houses in Warwick. How many more tankers will be required and at what extra cost?

Buses have not proved to be sustainable. The only service for Myton Road is one per hour and no-one uses it.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. I do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital. The hospital currently is in crisis and there is no room to extend. Funding for a new hospital is in doubt.

Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The Traffic Assessment commissioned states, "Schemes proposed within the modelling at this stage have not been tested to a sufficient level of detail to determine that they are the optimum solution" and "an obvious concern surrounding the implementation of this strategy is that this will result in an increase in the overall levels of traffic travelling through the town centre"!

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 12,300 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The Government says there is a definite link between pollution and traffic causing health problems such as asthma, some cancers, heart problems, etc. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. There are schools in the town and in the areas of high traffic congestion such as Myton and Banbury Roads with playgrounds and playing fields and children are already being exposed to nitrous-dioxide above legally permitted levels, risking asthma and all the other health problems associated with pollution. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick shows the very worst area being Warwick town centre and states on page 17:-

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assesse, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. Ass assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

NPPF 124 states, "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

I request that a Health Impact Assessment will be carried out including air quality testing well before any Local Plan in its current form is approved.

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road, Europa Way, Castle Bridge, Emscote Road and Prince's Drive are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen. One of the mitigation measures suggested includes a gyratory system at the Castle island which, with its traffic lights etc. will severely harm the setting of the castle in a conservation area. The green space forms the approach to Warwick and views from Warwick Castle. WDC say the area south of Warwick is environmentally sensitive but then put it in for development - why? Traffic would increase at the Butts, the narrowest road in the town and the no right turn plan for St. Nicholas Church Street would impact severely on the economy of Smith Street. Vibrancy of the town centre is important. Think about what the effect will be on people sitting outside cafés in danger of being knocked over and pollution from all the traffic being funnelled through Warwick. People won't want to shop in Warwick because they won't be able to get into the town. It will be the destruction of Warwick and the people who want to shop here. There will be an adverse affect on Tourism.

Parks

In the new Local Plan our parks will not be sufficiently protected from development by the old area of restraint policy we once had.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. We need an impact assessment to ensure its conservation. English Heritage have offered to help with this.

The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe" (NPPF 32).

Gypsies and Travellers Sites

Why are 15 of the proposed sites south of Warwick and only 3 north of Warwick?

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities....." In my opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. I believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound, especially on the air quality issue. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

I am writing in response to your Revised Development Strategy Document published June 2013.

I wish to register that I strongly object to the proposal to build additional houses to the South of Hampton Magna as outlined in the June 2013 Revised Development Strategy Document.

I am against the Green Belt being further eroded by the plans outlined and proposed in your document. The village has already suffered its share of green belt erosion on all sides in recent years.

I believe that the scale of the development is inappropriate in relation to the existing village population and infrastructure capacity. The services in the village are already fully utilised and will be negatively impacted through additional population growth. The school is already over-subscribed and is currently being extended to meet current demand.

Of particular concern is the impact on traffic congestion. The fact that the main access to the village is via a single file traffic controlled road under the railway bridge does not appear to have been fully factored into the proposals.

Finally, the land suggested for Gypsy sites are not appropriate - either for the traveller community or village residents. I am against the compulsory purchase of private land to facilitate Gypsy sites.

Ref. Proposed Gypsy & Traveller sites near Harbury (GT03, GT04)

I have been studying the proposal for the Local plan and draft policy for the criteria to assess traveller site suitability for Warwick District. The document provides a reasoned view and some direction on how the process will proceed.

I would however like to confirm my objection to the plans for the proposed sites near the Fosse Way and Harbury lane (GT03, GT04).

I regularly use this route and there are several compelling reasons why in my opinion the sites are not suitable. These include:

- Road safety. The crossroads at Harbury lane and the Fosse way is a very busy junction and extremely very difficult to turn onto the Fosse Way and over onto Harbury Lane. This junction is therefore already a high risk junction for traffic accidents. Both roads are busy during the day, but especially so at peak hours. There are no paths and the thought of individuals and potentially children near these roads is of serious concern and will potentially raise risks further.
- There is limited access to a GP surgery, schools or public transport.
- There is currently no public footpath on Harbury Lane which makes it a very unsafe and difficult road to walk on and also a difficult road to cross as a pedestrian trying to use local public services.
- The site is close to both Chesterton Windmill and the site of an old roman town. As important natural and historic features (photos are often taken facing west from the windmill) the sites would seem unsuitable.

In summary I do not believe these proposed sites are suitable as outlined above and I object to these sites on this basis.

I write to raise my strongest objection to the 2013 Local Plan, and the many planning applications that are associated with it - those that are currently under consideration, and those that are undoubtedly yet to come.

This revised local plan unfairly places the bulk of the proposed housing in one concentration to the south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash.
It also suggests an unfair proportion of proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in this area particularly in the Parish of Bishops Tachbrook, despite there being brown field sites in the district, (in addition to the vast amounts of Green belt land in the district that would also be more suitable due to infrastructure already in place).

Consideration also needs to be taken to the proposals by Stratford District Council to build a 'New Settlement' of approximately 1,500 new homes at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and the damaging affects this will also have on our infrastructure and air pollution levels!! From my own experience of living in Bishops Itchington, people in these villages travel to shop in Leamington for groceries, etc, not Stratford. The town will benefit from increased custom without the need to build excessive numbers of houses in our own district that there is no local need for.

Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa are centres for tourism, not just Stratford!
The proposal to build Gypsy and traveller sites on the main tourist routes from the M40 could affect the visual impact.

Scale and proportion


* massive long term coalescence of settlements,
* loss of significant open space,
* loss of local countryside,
* loss of agricultural land,
* lead to significant urban sprawl.
* excessive bulk and scale,
* significant overdevelopment of the area
* increased air pollution in Warwick Town Centre (already at high levels)


The effect of these potential developments on the existing local communities and infrastructure will be devastating, and I believe have been grossly underestimated by both Warwick DC and the developers.




Effect on local road traffic/infrastructure

The road infrastructure south of Warwick/Leamington and around Whitnash is already stretched.

* 2 or more cars per household,
* 9000 extra vehicles using the local road network.
* the local road infrastructure is inadequate. (e.g congestion on various local roads)
* traffic heading towards the town centres is already a major problem,
* gridlock, increased pollution etc.
* congestion on rural roads outside the town at peak times is also already a problem
* traffic noise,
* potential increased danger to pedestrians and children.

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DC7 states:
"Policy DC7 goes onto highlight that development will not be permitted where it generates significant road traffic movements, unless mitigation measures are used to avoid adverse impacts."

These developments will generate significant road traffic movements, and I do not believe that mitigation measures will alleviate the problem, certainly on a local level. If all the developments in the area are given the go ahead as part of the Local Plan, the situation will become untenable.

Effect of local services/amenities

The National Planning Policy Framework, Policy DP2 states:
"that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents and/or does not provide acceptable standards of amenity for future users / occupiers of the development."

* pressure on local schools
* primary schools already oversubscribed year on year
* increased pressure on the local secondary schools
* effect on catchment areas
* effect on applications from siblings of children already in one school
* new schools not "guaranteed" to be built as part of the developments
* limited access to doctors and dentists surgeries in the Whitnash and Warwick Gates and Myton areas already
* effect on increased numbers on the local hospitals

Flood Risk

* already flood issues in Whitnash and Warwick Gates
* scale and density of proposed housing,
* large areas of paved/concreted or tarmac surface etc,



Alternatives to the Local Plan

There are many reasons why the Local Plan represents a disaster for the whole of the South Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash areas, predominantly because of the sheer concentration of most of the districts proposed new housing in one relatively small area.

Alternatives that should be considered include:

* Identifying existing housing that is derelict or currently unoccupied,
* Identifying empty industrial units with a view to use the land for brownfield site housing.
* Identifying an area in the surrounding countryside to use to build an entirely "new town".
* Spreading the numbers of new homes evenly around the district, with lots more much smaller developments.
* Smaller developments given to local builders rather than large national firms, thus helping the local economy.

Applications have already been submitted for land that is earmarked to be part of the Local Plan, before the Local Plan has been fully agreed and approved is unacceptable. Such applications should not even be considered until such time as the Local Plan has been clarified and the public consultation completed.

Therefore, I hope you listen to the concerns and suggestions of the residents of your district, and act accordingly. This Local Plan cannot be allowed to come to fruition, and I hope Warwick DC come realize that, withdraw it, and refuse all the various planning applications relating to it, namely:

W/13/0776 - 280 homes at Woodside Farm fields
W/13/0606 - 720 homes on Lower Heathcote Farm land, south of Harbury Lane
W/13/0603 - 370 homes on land west of Europa Way/South of Gallows Hill
W/13/0607 - 220 homes on Hawkes Farm fields
W/13/0036 - 200 homes on Grove Farm fields (application on hold)

I object to the new local plan for the following reasons. We only need 5,400 houses. We do not need 4,000 in Warwick. Increase in traffic congestion and already illegal levels of pollution. Coalescence removing area of restraint. Infrastructure proposals inadequate and insufficient funding available. Increased flood risk. Inadequate sewage capacity. More sewage lorries needed to carry sewage to Coventry. Too many Gipsy sites in south Warwick. Please acknowledge this E mail.

Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT03 land at Barnwell Farm Harbury Lane
Whilst I understand that with a population increase more housing is required, I do not understand why Warwick District Council believes that the only option they have is to build all the proposed properties south of the river Leam focussing on the areas surrounding Warwick Gates, Bishops Tachbrook and Harbury Lane areas. This is not a case of 'not in my back yard' as I realise that some development will have to be in this area, however just using the excuse that the rest of Leamington north of the river, is green belt and therefore should not even be considered is totally unacceptable. Just because it is a complicated process doesn't mean that you should not challenge it.
I attended a meeting with representatives from the Planning and Highways departments on 16th July in Whitnash and came away with the impression that as far as these representatives are concerned the developments are a 'done deal' and we should not waste our time objecting. They did not listen or acknowledge the views of the concerned residents and at the Highways representative was unprofessional in the way he handled questions and should not be allowed to interact with the public again without significant training on how to handle public concerns. People were leaving throughout the meeting in disgust as the residents views were just brushed away and their concerns not acknowledged.
Forecasted Housing Numbers:
In the 20 years to 2011 the population growth was 18%. The Local Plan RDS is now proposing a further 20% increase in within 15 years requiring an additional 12,300 homes. Using projections based only on natural growth of the population and an allowance for migration only 5,400 homes are required. There is no need for the additional 6,900 homes.
Warwick District Council's own consultants G.L.Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012, which in option PROJ 5 arrived at only 4,405 new homes being required. Why are you choosing to ignore this?
Warwick District has a low unemployment rate of only 1.7%. The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment stated that overall 'Warwick District had a very good job-homes balance' and I do not see a driver for new homes to bring in new jobs being a valid reason.
Visual Impact of Development
Currently Bishops Tachbrook and the south of Leamington are just visible to one another. Building 2000 houses south of Harbury Lane and extending down the side of the Tachbrook valley will have a severe negative visual impact.
Whilst there is the proposal to build a country park which may provide some form of separation between Bishops Tachbrook and Warwick Gates, the house building proposed on the rolling countryside which makes this highly visible and negates the value of the Country Park.
The Planning Inspector who reviewed the current local plan in 2006 stated that Woodside Farm should not be built on now or in the future.
WDC's landscape consultant Richard Morrish in the Landscape Area Statement in 2009 referred to the land south of Gallows Hill and concluded "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and that the rural character should be safeguarded from development". So why has the district gone against that recommendation?
Local Infrastructure
Can the improvements required be delivered?

The Local Plan RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements can be delivered from the Developer contributions through Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy.

With so much unnecessary housing concentrated to the south of the town centres the surrounding roads will end up severely congested.

There will be even more severe at pinch points, crossings of canal river and railways where there is no realistically deliverable solution to the problem.

Traffic Volumes
There will be a significant increase in traffic which the road infrastructure will not be able to cope with, especially in the villages.

Agriculture
The land south of Harbury lane is predominately high grade agricultural land and we are always being told to support our local farmers and consider the environment. Is it sensible for high quality land producing multiple crops per year to be built upon and what impact will this have on our environment?

In relation to the proposed gypsy site, I also have significant concerns on the impact to our community.

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
Health Facilities:
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook, Warwick Gates, Whitnash & Harbury are already at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
There is no dentist surgery in Bishops Tachbrook and other surgeries are already at capacity.
Education:
The primary schools in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury are already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
The educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found for them at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this would have to be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs and how will this be prioritised against the constant demand for funding? Will our taxes have to be increased to pay for these?
Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read and write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. An adult who cannot read and write will have limited options on the jobs that they would be able to apply for. There are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury which means that there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
Infrastructure:
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be installed.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash together with the additional traffic at major road junctions putting too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals?
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.
Environment Impact:
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.
I have read the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
As per my comments regarding the planned housing development, how is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed and the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Is the plan to add these to the ones for south of the river and avoid any impact to the north of the river as it is blatently your intention.
Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read and this is misleading and in my view a deliberate attempt to mis-lead the impacted community.
I am extremely disappointed with the way that Warwick District Council is managing the consultation and the proposed development. I look forward to receiving a response to my objections and confirmation on the next steps.

see attached

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury is already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Josephs' has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Additional traffic at major road junctions would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.

We would lose the much used New Windmill football ground. This is not acceptable.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.


I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?

I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudist against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from 10 Downing Street and not Local council I found the attitude of the councils representatives quite staggering. The gentleman representing The Highways Agency had clearly not received any training in how to speak to people. He was interrupted at one point by a lady at the back of the hall who asked a question relevant to the comment he had just made. The gentleman from the Highways agency then lost his temper and threatened not to give us any information if he was interrupted again. I found this to be highly unprofessional and suggest that that gentleman needs to learn the difference between a heckle and a pertinent question. And for the record that lady asked 3 questions, non of them were answered. I was left wondering if this was because she didn't appear to be a councillor.
I also thought I was attending a public meeting but it appeared to be that the vast majority of people who were handed the microphone were councillors. I am very glad they were there but surely this was a place for the general public to have the chance to speak and to ask some questions supported by councillors?
Many people left that meeting about halfway through as they felt their voice was not being heard by the council. I found the whole experience depressing and frustrating. The gentlemen from the council set out their stall as a "you & us" situation and they seem to of forgotten that actually we are all supposed to be on the same side! We are able to understand directives from Downing Street and we should be questioning decisions that are projected onto our lives. Surely this is democracy? That meeting felt like the council had attended just to tick the box and that what they were suggesting should just be signed off. I am truly appalled.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions and trust my objections have now been logged.

see attached

see attached

Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT03 land at Barnwell Farm Harbury Lane

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary school in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury are already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Joseph's has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the educational needs of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Additional traffic at major road junctions would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.
.
It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash & Harbury would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.


I picked up the council's document "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
How is it those 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map form pages apart from each other & at different scales & angles. This also occurs for site GT06 which is opposite GT09. You are failing to make your documentation easy to read & this is inexcusable.
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?

I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudiced against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from 10 Downing Street and not Local council I found the attitude of the councils representatives quite staggering. The gentleman representing The Highways Agency had clearly not received any training in how to speak to people. He was interrupted at one point by a lady at the back of the hall who asked a question relevant to the comment he had just made. The gentleman from the Highways agency then lost his temper and threatened not to give us any information if he was interrupted again. I found this to be highly unprofessional and suggest that that gentleman needs to learn the difference between a heckle and a pertinent question. And for the record that lady asked 3 questions, none of them were answered.
I also thought I was attending a public meeting but it appeared to be that the vast majority of people who were handed the microphone were councillors. I am very glad they were there but surely this was a place for the general public to have the chance to speak and to ask some questions supported by councillors?
Many people left that meeting about halfway through as they felt their voice was not being heard by the council. I found the whole experience depressing and frustrating. The gentlemen from the council set out their stall as a "you & us" situation and they seem to of forgotten that actually we are all supposed to be on the same side! We are able to understand directives from Downing Street and we should be questioning decisions that are projected onto our lives. Surely this is democracy? That meeting felt like the council had attended just to tick the box and that what they were suggesting should just be signed off. I am truly appalled.

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached