8. Identification of Potential Sites

Site GT02

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed location of a Gypsy and Traveller site on land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425 see notes below.


Objections to proposed Gypsy Traveller site GT02

Convenient access to GP surgery, school and public transport

I understand that the GT02 site scores highly because it has regular public transport. I cannot see how the existing bus stop arrangements ( a post set on a grass verge ) can be used without extensive alteration e.g. the need to provide pathways, standing area and a lay by for the buses on what is especially in rush hour periods a very busy road, the site is on a high risk route as defined by the council a few years ago.
Is there an intention to provide a footpath between the site and Radford Semele, if so how would this be achieved and at what cost ?
.
There is no capacity at the nearest GP surgery ( I just phoned and asked ) and the next alternative surgery is some 5 miles distant with no direct public transport link.

The nearest primary school is in Radford Semele that has with very little spare capacity and would I think be stretched to accommodate children who would come and go as the traveller lifestyle dictates.

According to the council there is provision in the "Local Plan" for more houses in Radford Semele which would eat up any capacity for school and GP surgery places.

Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding

After heavy rain fall there are areas of standing water on the site and in the surrounding fields.

Provision of utilities

There is no access to "mains" sewerage on the site so expensive septic tank facilities would need to be provided. There is no mains gas supply and the electricity supply is from the rural network and is therefore limited in capacity.

Impact on the Historic and Natural Environment

I see from the the councils report on potential Gypsy Traveller sites ( report created by Enfusion) that there is no historical significance to the site. A simple search reveals that the site, like many areas of land adjacent to the Fosse is on the Archaeological Register with recent finds of pottery recorded. I understand that the land is also the site of a toll dating back to medieval times.

The site is adjacent to protected ancient woodland and surrounded by farmland.

Integration into the landscape

As the site is in the valley between two hills and at a major junction on the Fosse it will be obvious when approached from any direction and no amount of fencing/landscaping will hide it. The response form says that some travellers will live and work at the same location. I do not know what form of work might be carried out on the site but this must have an impact on the councils need to ensure " integration into the landscape".

Peaceful and integrated co-existence into the local community

I feel that a site of the size proposed which, I understand could contain up to 100 persons will dominate the local community which currently totals some 50 souls. We would be overwhelmed by a community with different lifestyles and very different living style.

The owner of the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre says he has lost business already as potential exhibitors are put off by the proposal to locate the Gypsy Traveller site on his land and that he would be forced to close down the centre with the loss of some forty jobs if the proposal goes ahead. This seems madness on the part of the council in the current economic climate and is not a good example of peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


Comments on the Plan

I am also want to make comments on the style of the and value of the Enfusion report on which these options are based and the choice of locations for these sites.

While the Enfusion report impressed me at first glance careful reading and some simple analysis reveals flaws. Many of these were highlighted at the recent public meeting at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre. This is with reference to unanswered questions, "cut and paste" responses and simplistic comments i.e. there is an existing bus service / primary school / GP surgery but with no comment on wether or not this infrastructure is capable of supporting the extra load that would be imposed by a GT site or even the proposed housing developments for the districts.

There is much in the reports decision matrix on the need to have a site where there is access to public transport, GP surgery and schooling etc yet most of the sites in the plan are in isolated, mainly rural areas. As the council has plans for so many new housing developments would it not be simpler to locate the Gypsy Traveller sites alongside these developments and so merge the infrastructure needs of the extra housing proposed and the GT sites.

I would like to be informed of any future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites AND any consultations / reports for WDC housing developments.

Site GT02

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed location of a Gypsy and Traveller site on land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425 see notes below.


Objections to proposed Gypsy Traveller site GT02

Convenient access to GP surgery, school and public transport

I understand that the GT02 site scores highly because it has regular public transport. I cannot see how the existing bus stop arrangements ( a post set on a grass verge ) can be used without extensive alteration e.g. the need to provide pathways, standing area and a lay by for the buses on what is especially in rush hour periods a very busy road, the site is on a high risk route as defined by the council a few years ago.
Is there an intention to provide a footpath between the site and Radford Semele, if so how would this be achieved and at what cost ?
.
There is no capacity at the nearest GP surgery ( I just phoned and asked ) and the next alternative surgery is some 5 miles distant with no direct public transport link.

The nearest primary school is in Radford Semele that has with very little spare capacity and would I think be stretched to accommodate children who would come and go as the traveller lifestyle dictates.

According to the council there is provision in the "Local Plan" for more houses in Radford Semele which would eat up any capacity for school and GP surgery places.

Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding

After heavy rain fall there are areas of standing water on the site and in the surrounding fields.

Provision of utilities

There is no access to "mains" sewerage on the site so expensive septic tank facilities would need to be provided. There is no mains gas supply and the electricity supply is from the rural network and is therefore limited in capacity.

Impact on the Historic and Natural Environment

I see from the the councils report on potential Gypsy Traveller sites ( report created by Enfusion) that there is no historical significance to the site. A simple search reveals that the site, like many areas of land adjacent to the Fosse is on the Archaeological Register with recent finds of pottery recorded. I understand that the land is also the site of a toll dating back to medieval times.

The site is adjacent to protected ancient woodland and surrounded by farmland.

Integration into the landscape

As the site is in the valley between two hills and at a major junction on the Fosse it will be obvious when approached from any direction and no amount of fencing/landscaping will hide it. The response form says that some travellers will live and work at the same location. I do not know what form of work might be carried out on the site but this must have an impact on the councils need to ensure " integration into the landscape".

Peaceful and integrated co-existence into the local community

I feel that a site of the size proposed which, I understand could contain up to 100 persons will dominate the local community which currently totals some 50 souls. We would be overwhelmed by a community with different lifestyles and very different living style.

The owner of the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre says he has lost business already as potential exhibitors are put off by the proposal to locate the Gypsy Traveller site on his land and that he would be forced to close down the centre with the loss of some forty jobs if the proposal goes ahead. This seems madness on the part of the council in the current economic climate and is not a good example of peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


Comments on the Plan

I am also want to make comments on the style of the and value of the Enfusion report on which these options are based and the choice of locations for these sites.

While the Enfusion report impressed me at first glance careful reading and some simple analysis reveals flaws. Many of these were highlighted at the recent public meeting at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre. This is with reference to unanswered questions, "cut and paste" responses and simplistic comments i.e. there is an existing bus service / primary school / GP surgery but with no comment on wether or not this infrastructure is capable of supporting the extra load that would be imposed by a GT site or even the proposed housing developments for the districts.

There is much in the reports decision matrix on the need to have a site where there is access to public transport, GP surgery and schooling etc yet most of the sites in the plan are in isolated, mainly rural areas. As the council has plans for so many new housing developments would it not be simpler to locate the Gypsy Traveller sites alongside these developments and so merge the infrastructure needs of the extra housing proposed and the GT sites.

I would like to be informed of any future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites AND any consultations / reports for WDC housing developments.

I am writing to raise and log my objections and concerns to the Warwick District Local Plan.

I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook and feel the proposals will have a detrimental effect of the health and well being of many residents, not only in the Village itself but in the surrounding areas of Whitnash and including Warwick and Leamington Spa.

Firstly I would like to raise an objection to the number of houses that is currently in the plan. 12, 300 homes seems very extreme. Projections (based on 2011 Census data in 2013) seem to suggest that around 5,400 homes would be needed in the area, allowing for migration and natural growth of the population. Warwick District council's own consultant Gil Hearn gave an Economic and Demographic Forecast Study in December 2012. In this study only 4,405 new homes were needed.
These figures indicate the housing figures in the Local Plan is more than double what is actually needed..

The current Local Plan bases most of the homes in the South of the District. As it stands it would fill a vast area of rural and agricultural land between Warwick, Whitnash and Bishops Tachbrook. Building here would just merge our built areas, making them a single suburban sprawl. Currently there is a rolling landscape with far reaching views. I understand a country park would be planned at the border of Bishops Tachbrook but this is felt to be ineffective as the excessive new homes would be highly visible and the beautiful views we currently enjoy would disappear.

The majority of the housing is proposed to the South of the town centres. This will have a massive impact on congestion making it even more severe at crossings over the canal, river and railway in the area where there is no available solution to the current infrastructure. The current locations of this housing would encourage an even greater car- dependent culture, increasing traffic and worsening congestion on the two north and south routes through Leamington Spa and Warwick.

The concentration of these homes will, I believe, have a detrimental effect on Bishops Tachbrook. There will no doubt be an increase in the traffic on the minor road through the village (Mallory Road). This is already used as a cut through by speeding cars trying to avoid the already overloaded road network. This will have dramatic effect on the community, putting people's lives at risk crossing a much busier road with motorists driving at speed, whilst trying to access the village's facilities such as the local shop, doctors surgery, community/playing facilities and the primary school. The village could be split in two by this road and go from a community where local children are allowed some freedom and independence to access our excellent play facilities to a community where social isolation is prevalent as they are terrified by a very busy road. An increase in the amount of vehicles passing through will also increase the risk to the health of villager's especially the children with an increase of air pollution.
Indeed the increased number of cars 12, 300 homes will bring will have far reaching consequences for our air quality. Already pollution from car exhausts in many streets in Warwick town centre and some in Leamington is already worse than legally permitted. Air quality is needed to be improved on by Warwick District Council but this Local Plan and its transport strategy would exacerbate it further. Long term health of residents would be even more threatened with damage being brought to the local economy as businesses and tourism would damaged by the Plan .There would no longer be the beauty currently found in historic Warwick or the spa town of Leamington.

There is the consideration of other infrastructure, in theory there is funding for this. However in reality this could surely not be enough. I am aware that times are tough currently in the NHS with services being reconfigured and cut to save money. Services are stretched to capacity now so a further 12, 300 homes some perhaps with families living in them would push our healthcare facilities beyond breaking point.

The Proposed Gypsy and Travelers sites are again concentrated in the same area. There are several sites proposed around Bishops Tachbrook. One site situated on Banbury Road/ Mallory Road is extremely unsuitable as it is so near a busy main road (will be increasingly busier with many more homes just down the road!!) so is not suitable for the travelers and their families in terms of safety or access. It also currently floods and floods down through the Village through the back gardens of where I currently live. I feel that hard standing for proposed travelers site will create less surface area for the water to soak away and increase the volume of water flooding down through the Village, instead of just flooding gardens, it will flood through homes.
These sites would also impact on the local facilities, the school is already at capacity and the GP practice is just a branch surgery with limited opening hours. At the time that Warwick Gates was build we were promised a school on Warwick gates. This never happened putting a further strain on the schools in the area. Now the children from Bishops Tachbrook are no longer eligible for Myton School, they have to pass Myton School and carry on several miles further to Aylesford School. This makes me feel what we are going to lose this time.

I feel that the points I have raised just add up to a poorer quality of life and health for those who reside in the south of the District.

I feel there are better alternatives such as lower housing numbers to meet local need, a gradual releasing of land for development as and when demand grows, priority being given to use brown field sites nearer to schools, shops and railway stations, homes being built close to jobs and cooperating with other local councils instead of competing with them over development.

I would very much appreciate a reply to the objections I have raised.

We are writing to register our objections and give our views on the suitability of the following Gypsy and Traveller Site Options together with the Revised Development Strategy.

GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road - (Site 5)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT06 - Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm - (Site 6)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining Sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.
* There have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors' surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


Cont/d .....

GT09 - Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood Road - (Site 9)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed still has the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* This site sits immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining Sites 9 and 6 for the same reasons.
* There have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to this site and beyond.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Cont/d .....

GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre - (Site 10)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

GT12 - Land at north and west of Westham Lane (area of search) - (Site 12)
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* A number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Vehicular access to this site is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT15 - Land to east of Europa Way - (Site 15)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT16 - Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford - (Site 16)
* This is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development.
* This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* A number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.
* There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. Vehicular access to this site is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the site is entirely inadequate.
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.


Cont/d .....
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT17 - Land of Southbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 17)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT18 - Land on Northbound carriageway of A46 (former Little Chef) - (Site 18)
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.


GT20 - Land at J15 M40/A46 - (Site 20)
* This site is situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation
* Vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* The site is not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. It does not offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycles routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would lace further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (e.g. Site 12) totally unviable.
* Warwick District Council have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan Sites). In all respects the site fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.
* The development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
* This site is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

Availability
Only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

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

Warwick District Council 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 ad 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.

Warwick District Council 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, doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Warwick District Council 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.

Warwick District Council should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9 and 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 allowed to be "swallowed up" by Warwick and Leamington over time.

Revised Development Strategy
1. The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is in our view to be without foundation. A detailed and authoritative report produced by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests the likely requirement is 5,400 homes, less than half the WDC estimate. The WDC need to re-consider their estimate taking into account the homes required in neighbouring authorities (Coventry; Rugby & Stratford) and rationalise the estimate to be sure there is no duplication of need. Even the proposed 5,400 homes will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area which will result in unacceptable traffic congestion and consequent air pollution which is reportedly already illegal in Warwick.
2. Within the WDC estimate, is a figure of 100-150 new homes in Hampton Magna. The existing amenities there are already overstretched and to add an additional 300 people - more than double the population of Hampton-on-the-Hill - will mean they will be unable to cope. Also the single road through the two villages is already used as a 'rat run' by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway Railway Station and to the M40 Motorway. Indeed more and urgent attention needs to be given to improving the existing transport infrastructure to accommodate the current population.
3. With an estimate of 5,400 homes, no development needs to take place in the villages mentioned in the Plan thereby protecting the Green Belt and the Rural nature of the district which makes it the pleasant place in which to live.
4. We urge the WDC to heed the concerns expressed in the letter from our MP. - Mr Chris White - to Cllr Doody dated 24th June 2013 in which he expresses his concern about the housing estimate and urges the WDC to 'respect the views of local residents.'

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
The need to provide sites for Gypsies & Travellers has long been ignored by the WDC leading to the reason often given by the travelling community for the illegal occupation of some sites. The requirement is for 31 permanent pitches and 12 transit pitches. Now there are twenty proposed sites amounting to 206 pitches in all which seem to have been selected in a somewhat haphazard manner. We realise that only one or two sites will be selected from the twenty suggested but the number and location of so many sites has caused unnecessary alarm among residents. For example, there are six sites within two miles of Hampton-on-the-Hill.
Site GT 13 at Kites Nest Lane has been the subject of an Inquiry with a decision due in October 2013. How can it be considered a viable site? Site GT 20 is the site of Morrison's compound when the A 46 flyover/M 40 modifications were being constructed during 2009/11. On completion of that work it was offered as a possible site for the travelling community and turned down by the WDC as unsuitable; being too distant from the amenities required by them. How then can it now be regarded as a viable site?
Instead of proposing the twenty sites, why not instead consider housing the 31 pitches on the fringes of the other larger proposed housing developments. In this way the travelling community will have convenient access to the amenities they require.

Traveller and Gypsy sites should be included in proposed development sites, not out in the Green Belt.

* Site 16. This is a flood compensation area and is cannot be used for any form of development.
* Sites 12 and 16. These are within areas which have been identified by The Environment agency of having significant flood risk
* Sites 12 and 16. Water Voles have been reported in areas immediately adjacent to these sites. Water Voles are a legally protected species.
* Sites 12 and 16. There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Sites 6 and 9. These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gasses and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 10 and 20. Both are adjacent to historic landfills which, though closed, may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 6 and 9. Both sit immediately approximate to the Asps which WDC decided after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the site should remain open due to its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park, The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 f or the same reasons.
* Sites 6 and 9. There have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds to these 2 sites and beyond.
* Sites 12 and 16. Vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access to the sites is entirely inadequate.
* Sites 5, 6,9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. Vehicle access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* Sites 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20. The sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of these sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors etc) on foot or bike via a pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the locak highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Sites 5,6,9,12,16 and 20. Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16. Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to meet 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20. WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPS1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of the development.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 16 and 20. The development of all these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. These are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* Availability. Only 3 if the sites listed are available, namely 15, 17 an 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.
* 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 better enable integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are 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 suitable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as 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 also 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.


Mark Mitchell
Barford Resident

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07802 470896
Email: mark.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethinic origin: White British
Age: 45 - 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, GT12, GT15, GT16, GT17, GT18, GT20.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposal of all these sites for the reasons stated below. I have based my objections on the suitability and sustainability criteria used in the WDC consultation document.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development. No one from WDC can have surveyed this possible location ahead of consultation.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. Extensive flooding has taken place in both sites earlier this year.


* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.


* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

My general comments relating to ALL of the above sites are:

* 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 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.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable. A compulsory purchase order would be extremely lengthy, costly and unviable compared to other options.

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington where 12,300 houses are proposed. 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.

* 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.

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

The consultation document published by WDC June 2013 misrepresents proposed size and visual impact of a completed site! Pictures used on page 3 and page 4 are from holiday caravan sites. The proposal of each pitch being 500 sqm each in size is omitted from the document and is misleading. Approved, licenced Gypsy and Traveller sites do not look like that in WDC 's consultation document.

Can you pleased confirm receipt of this response for my records.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

* 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 Gypsies and Travellers 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 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
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 Sirs

Re: Placement of Gypsy and Traveller Sites

We are residents of the above address and have a keen interest in the proposed placement of gypsy and traveller sites. We ask you to note our interest in this matter.

We also attended the recent meeting to discuss these issues held at Barford on 3 July 2013. We have heard various points of discussion and wish to put forward our views on the proposed sites.

Identification of Pitch Numbers for Warwick District Area

At the Barford meeting, it was discussed that the numbers of the proposed sites/pitches has been established by research conducted by Salford University. At no point have we as residents been advised of the methods used to obtain the data relied upon. Please provide a full copy to us. Until you do so, we reserve the right to raise legal argument about the appropriateness or otherwise of this selection process. Further, it was suggested that the Salford University research took place over a 3 month period but, again, the exact data has not been forthcoming. Please identify the period over which such research was conducted.

.





The Legal Framework

We understand that pursuant to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Housing Act 2004, that you as a Local Authority have a legal requirement to meet the needs of accommodation for the population. However, in implementing that NPPF you are required to comply with all other legal requirements.

Of particular interest to us is site GT20 - land at junction 15 of M40. This has been identified by you as a potential site. First of all, part of the land in question is owned by ourselves. We trust you are not possibly contemplating the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) in this regard. We ask you to confirm this point by return. Until you do so, we reserve the right specifically to raise legal argument about the appropriate use of CPO powers. Clearly, and for the avoidance of doubt, purchase of land for gypsy and traveller sites does not fall into that category.

That aside, the land in question, GT20, is in fact a Greenbelt site. We are sure we need not remind you of the Department for Communities and Local Government's written Ministerial Statement dealing with the issue of planning policies towards gypsy and traveller sites. We are sure the Minister of State's Statement is well known to yourselves but, again for the avoidance of doubt, we quote:

"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 greenbelts and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the greenbelt".

As you well know, the Secretary of State further advises in that Statement that particular scrutiny will be applied to traveller site appeals within greenbelt land.

Please allow us to be clear. If planning permission is given to develop gypsy and traveller sites in greenbelt land in Warwickshire, we will appeal the process, apply for a judicial review and invoke the Secretary of State's intervention.

Urban Areas

Your consultation document, chapter 8.1, suggests that land owned by Warwick District Council, (other than that contained in this document) has proved unsuitable. Upon what evidence and what basis has that conclusion been reached? Urban land is entirely appropriate for developments of this kind. Whilst we are not experts in the population statistics of gypsy and travelling communities, we would suggest that they may have children. Site GT20, and indeed for that matter many others, have no schools nearby. The residents of the site will also need access to urban amenities such as hospitals, GPs, shops etc. By placing gypsy and traveller sites in such a remote location it increases the level of services and amenities which will be required by this community. The roads surrounding site GT20 are often used by farming machinery; such machinery and farm traffic being unsuitable for developments of this nature. Placing a G & T site in this location will undoubtedly create difficulties between the existing population and the gypsy and travelling community.

Finally, we have to call into question the competence and integrity of the planning officers who have identified the proposed sites. Salford University has, we understand, identified the number of sites both residential and transient for Gypsy and Traveller use in Warwickshire. The local authority planning departments have then applied this information to their planning criteria. They have concluded that 40% of the proposed sites are to be built in greenbelt land, including the one of most immediate concern to us, GT20. This is totally inappropriate use of the green belt and not in any way being used as a last resort. These sites should never have been selected at this stage, but only in very special circumstances and as a last resort. This clearly flies in the face of clear guidance from the Secretary of State

We trust we have made our feelings clear on this issue and ask you to acknowledge receipt of our correspondence. We have taken the liberty of copying this letter to our Solicitor, James Leo, Partner in the firm of Coley & Tilley Solicitors, Neville House, 14 Waterloo Street, Birmingham. B2 5UF. We ask you to submit your response to this letter and the documentation we have requested in it to our Solicitor so that he may deal with any outstanding issues.

Dear Sir or Madam

I have now had the opportunity to read the document in detail. I would like to raise the following questions.

- My first question relates to the images contained within the gypsy and travellers document, and I would be grateful if you would indicate which gypsy or traveller site they relate to?

- The proposed 'south side' development provides additional infrastructure including two primary schools and a secondary school, together with significant investment in an extensive highway infrastructure. Given the significant improvements to the infrastructure, why are the potential gypsy and traveller sites not being considered within the same overall plan. It seems we currently have a local plan for housing and a local plan for gypsies and travellers. I would be grateful if you could explain the rationale, as to why are we developing infrastructure on one hand, whilst at the same time placing significant demand on small villages such as Harbury where the existing infrastructures cannot cope?

- The presentation provided by WDC, states that according to the National Policy Planning Framework it requires plans to be used that are evident based.
Please indicate where the evidence supporting your local plan can be found, for:
- each site is to have between 5-15 pitches
- Each pitch needs 500sq/m
- Each site needs storage connected with employment
- Each pitch needs space for a travelling caravan

- I am looking for particular evidence to support the statement 'Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area'. How has this been evidenced for the currently proposed sites?

It is my opinion that the current plans do not meet the criteria defined by the National Policy Planning Framework. I am looking to receive detailed evidence to suggest otherwise. The current document is nothing more than a glossy (expensive) marketing document, and does not form the basis of a rational consultation document.

see attached

During this consultation period and in particular at the Barford public meeting, WDC has singularly failed to address public fear and community concerns relating to the siting of gypsy and traveller sites in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour. Direct questions have been asked of the relevant officers and no comfort or intelligent comment has been received in return. In Barford as a case in point the response went something like "We dont know, it is difficult for us because we have not done this before". In consultation publications we have even been treated to images of touring caravans instead of traveller sites.

Quite rightly, people are at pains to avoid prejudicial comment. It has no place in public consultation nor decision making, however our community's fear is real and has not been addressed. Fear, be it based upon fact or upon misunderstanding is corrosive and damaging and has a tangible impact on residential amenity. Fear will not go away unless WDC tackles it head on and provides us with concrete and compelling evidence to allay it.

I have already mentioned that open and direct requests to WDC in public meetings have not delivered any information to allay our fears (be they based on fact or perception). It is unfortunate that at exactly the same time, our community fears have been strengthened following the occupation of land outside the village for a week by a group of travellers. During that occupation our fears about antisocial behaviour were strengthened by the total disregard shown by the travellers to property. The site was left in a disgraceful state when they left. Waste of every kind was left strewn including in a neighbouring field that had been used as a communal toilet. The community's fears about vehicle crime were strengthened when uninsured vehicles were identified by the police. Our community's fears of crime were strengthened when several individuals were taken into custody relating to the theft of fuel.

The effects of fear on a community, be they based upon fact, perception or misunderstanding should not be underestimated. Where sites are proposed close to existing settlements I urge WDC to tackle head on the real fears of those communities. Either communicate the issues openly and honestly and discuss suggested approaches remedies and solutions, or provide tangible evidence that the fears are misguided.

see attached

Since I made my objection known in the first local plan I see you have upped the total of houses to be built.

I feel the district council are ignoring the feelings of the village and am so perplexed as to why you required our parish councillors to write a village plan and then totally ignore it.

Our village is fully utilized and this amount of housing will seriously affect the well being of its residents.

Also why do we have to provide all of these sites for Gypsies? You call them showmen in your description of them but the ones we see are usually tarmacing people's drives from white vans which have magnetic false company names attached to the sides to make them look legitimate. Or they do gardening (as they did for an elderly neighbour) then dumped the cuttings down the road in a gateway. Council had to remove it at goodness knows what cost. So I do question why they should receive special treatment and be found land when they don't contribute to council coffers as everyone in this village has to. It's just not fair or right.

I would like to log my objections against the travellers and gypsies sites proposed for Warwick and specifically the site proposed behind the Farmhouse on the Hampton Road.

My husband attended a residents association meeting this evening and it was quite apparent there is a lot of anger locally about the lack of local consultation by the council. That's not to mention the anger about the proposals.

I have already raised my concerns about this and would like to know what the council intends to do. As I've said before consultation is just that and people affected need to be informed, not people the other side of Warwick. I imagine people the other side of Warwick are quite pleased as this isn't on their door steps and will probably support the proposal!

I'm also extremely concerned to hear the the bin leaflets were not delivered to the Forbes Estate. These people are as affected as us, as the local schools are within this area. This is frankly very poor.

I'm also very disapointed by the leaflet produced to explain the location of the Gyspy Sites. Can you confirm that the pictures used are of Gypsy sites and not just holiday sites. There are no cars or people even. No concrete hard standing or toilet blocks. Really not very representative. Also, the map that shows the positon of all the sites is misleading. The site GT17&18 are opposite. The map doesn't show this.

I am a resident of Hatton Park and I would like to object to the scale of new development planned by Warwick District Council for the next eighteen years.

The infrastructure of the area will simply not sustain such development. The amount of traffic on our roads already causes huge problems on a daily basis. I refer in particular to the possible building of between 70 - 90 new homes in the Hatton/Hatton Park area.

The A4177 is gridlocked in the mornings with the queue of cars attempting to get into Warwick often starting at the Hatton Arms. Under these circumstances leaving Hatton Park is nothing short of a nightmare. To introduce a significant increase in the number of cars joining the daily commute is short sighted and ill thought through. The 4177 in the last few years has already seen many accidents, some with fatalities. This raises the questions of how the emergency services are going to cope with busier roads? How the local schools which are already full to capacity will cope with extra children? How doctors' surgeries, some of which already cannot offer routine appointments for up to two weeks are going to cope with extra patients?

The possible sites identified in Hatton Park and other sites across the district lie within the Green Belt. On July 2nd a ministerial statement was released reiterating that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also states that it is becoming apparent in some cases the Green Belt is not being given sufficient protection. This clearly shows that even if WDC cannot meet their need on non Green Belt sites, it doesn't necessarily outweigh the loss of Green Belt.
The Warwick area does need and cannot cope with the amount of new homes that the council are proposing. I urge the council to review their figures and to adopt a plan for fewer homes which can be accommodated on non Green Belt sites.

I would also like to add that I do not feel that traveller/ gypsy sites in the Green Belt fall into the category of special circumstances. I therefore strongly object to the possible siting of a traveller/gypsy site at Oaklands Farm. That particular area like the existing traveller site in Kites Nest Lane is prone to flooding. It floods from water which runs from fields on the opposite side of the A4177, including the two fields shown on your map of proposed sites as R115 and R126. My understanding is that there are a myriad of pipes and also balancing tanks in these areas from the old psychiatric and chest hospitals. Are these therefore really suitable areas for new homes?

There is also the matter of the loss of wildlife habitat. Smiths Covert is the home to Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, pheasants and many others wildlife species and birds.

PO1 - Level of Growth
Where is this predicted growth to warrant 770 new homes in Kenilworth coming from? indigenous growth within Kenilworth or is it from increasing immigration from outside the UK? a very concerning development for the future make up of the town, though one I am sure one the Council does not want to accept as it is not deemed politically correct to talk about immigration.
Leamington residents are commenting to me about the increasing Polish community there with the associated difficulties that brings.

P02 Community Infrastructure Levy
Currently we have one senior school and one sixth form in Kenilworth, 770 homes could bring another 1400 plus children requiring education to Kenilworth, will a new senior school be built? How will the sixth form be expanded to cope with the increased demand? - I understand it is already oversubscribed.

P07 - Gypsies and Travellers
I would fully support that the District does not have any sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Why is consideration being given to non tax paying groups? It would appear to me they are given more consideration than tax payers, look at the time and resource to remove them from Beausale, I am sure if I infringed planning regulations I would not be afforded the leniency they have been afforded.
What is happening with Brookside Willows caravan park outside Warwick, I see a lot has been spent by Local Authorities on this "travellers" site and it remains empty.
Why are WDC rewarding this group, look at the cost and chaos the Horse fair causes in and around Kenilworth.

P08 - Economy
What employment opportunities beyond the building of the houses does the Kenilworth development offer? I cannot see any.

P016 - Green Belt
I do not believe the Local Authorities have given any consideration to retaining the Green Belt around Kenilworth, the intention would appear to be to destroy it.

For the above reasons I would like to register my strong opposition to the above elements of this Local Plan, these are not "preferred options" for Kenilworth or it's residents.

I look forward to your response

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached