GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

This site is very remote from major amenities. It borders two very busy fast roads and has no means of pedestrian access.

This area did flood quite magnificently last year. It is not convenient to a local GP surgery (warwick gates surgery is too full to obtain realistic appointments). There are no local schools and the public transport system is insufficient to cope with additional pupils, so expensive taxi services would be required to transport pupils to schools. This is not a safe road especially for cyclists as it is too narrow. There are no pavements so pedestrian access is none existent so increasing the reliance on using cars and vans. The busy road has not been upgraded to cope with additional traffic, the junction with the Fosse Way is notified as a dangerous junction. During rush hours some drivers take risks when crossing the junction; an increase in traffic would increase the dangerous driving in this area which could cause serious injuries and deaths. Local properties in the area do not have access to mains sewerage or gas and none of these services can be upgraded for local householders in the area - it seems remarkable that this has been overlooked by the council. Local businesses cannot have their broadband services upgraded - by the county councils own admission they fall into the 10% that will not benefit from the £16M broadband upgrade proposed for other areas of the county. Local homeowners are not allowed to build new homes due to the local plan of other district councils. Does this mean that rules imposed on local homes over many years can be overturned because warwickdc wishes to place the burden on their borders so other councils have to deal with any infrastructure issues, traffic problems or school places? This does seem a very poorly thought through proposal for this area.

* Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? The concentrated location of large pitches in few areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash lacks social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This majority of sites are south of the rivers and are around Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of these new pitches, especially as these are in areas with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

* We think that such a number of new sites contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resources they need and this additional traffic will add to the congestion.

* The proposed site will be detrimental to the Health care provision for the G&T community through their remoteness from suitable capacity and suitable provision of service. It is recognised that this community will need good access to Primary, General and Specialist healthcare.

* The increase in traffic and noise arising additional, often heavy vehicles in this area will result in further pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are already grid locked, your proposed development will simply be adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations. The UK currently imports around 40% of its food - an untenable situation as identified by DEFRA's Food Chain Analysis Group in December 2006. To carry-out non-sustainable development and changing agricultural usage green field land to built environment seems irresponsible and foolhardy at a time when Climate Change, Food Security, Energy Security and the Global Economy are all at large and likely to be so for some considerable time.


* There are simply not enough schools in the area to cope with these sites; Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook Primary Schools and Myton Secondary School are already heavily oversubscribed. New and existing schools are controlled by Warwickshire County Council; therefore the District Council is unable to guarantee that the large number of school age children who will live in the proposed sites will be able to find a local school to attend. Therefore, the capacity of the Schools in the area to provide secure and stable education to families moving into/out of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a secure education to their children. The local authority have a legal duty to educate children as do their parents.
* Is it practical to expect local schools to be able to take on children as and when required? Do they have the space? Do they have the funding for these children? Due to the itinerant nature of these families' lifestyles, the children will often have difficulty keeping up or catching up with other pupils and will need the provision of extra resources like special needs teachers.

* Parents may have to travel miles in order to take their children to and from school. Alternatively, children may be required to walk long distances to and from school, which is likely to lead to an increase in truancy. This time spent travelling to and from school could be better spent actually focusing on their studies or enjoying recreational activities.

* It is very likely that many gypsy and traveller parents will have to travel to school by car. Travellers will also have to travel by car in order to reach their places of work. This will create even more morning and afternoon congestion on roads that are already extremely busy during these times. At peak times, the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as J14 of the M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park drive, are grid locked. Your proposed developments will directly impact these roads.

* Public Transport - There is very limited public transport available in this area. The proposed site would mean residents of the G&T settlement would in reality have no alternative but to use private vehicles to travel to/from the site. The limited availability comprises only a very limited bus service, therefore if a Gypsy and Traveller site were to be established on this site it would result in an increase in the use of cars and other vehicles in the local area. This opposes a number of Warwick District Council's policies. This should be avoided both for the safety of the drivers, and the safety of children at the site.
* The huge increase in traffic in the area will result in an incredible increase in pollution and contribute to the existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington. The Highways Transport Development Control has estimated the potential increase in traffic to be in the order of 9 to 11 movements per pitch. Resulting in an additional 45 to 55 movements (2 way) per day on our busy local roads.
* It is interesting that the council choose to use the word "pitch" when we are considering an application for 5 "units". I do not feel it is safe to assume that an estimate made on the basis of a "pitch" equates to the same basis for a "unit"
* Even if the two terms did equate, we have to take into account that the planning application is only an illustration, and not a restriction on the use of the land. It would be quite feasible to park another 2 caravans on each "unit", thereby doubling the potential amount of traffic. This would result in 90 to 110 movements (2 way) per day.
* In order for people living in the area to travel into the town centre, it is necessary to cross the River Leam. There are currently only 3 bridges that make this possible, and these bridges can already become highly congested. Residents who move into the proposed sites will also have to travel this way in order to reach the facilities in Leamington town centre. The District Council has no control over plans for new roads or bridges and, therefore, is unable to rectify the problems they will be creating.

* Such a large number of proposed new sites in the area contradicts the very vision that Warwick District Council claims to have:

"A mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have been developed a grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics, and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution..." (The Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026: Point 1, Core Strategy document, June 2009).

* Of particular concern is the Southern area of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Whitnash as the Warwick Gates development of around 1,600 homes has already placed serious pressure on the roads and schools in this area and further development will seriously exacerbate the problem.
* Road Safety/Road Access - Road access to the site is via an extremely busy "A Road", where there have been a number of accidents over the years.

* If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook. The proposed site and associated facilities would not be suitable nor meet the needs of the gypsy and travelling community, nor the existing communities of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook. I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the gypsy and travelling communities and would severely compromise peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

* Employment - Employment opportunities within this area extremely limited with the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London. The proposed site would be therefore provide little opportunity for the G&T community to pursue careers and obtain employment.

* Foul Sewer: There is currently no provision on or near the site for the disposal of foul sewage into an adopted foul and surface water sewer system. Septic tanks only collect the solids, they are designed so that in principal, the foul water is allowed to overflow, run off slowly and be filtered as it passes through the ground. Septic tanks need emptying. An average septic tank is normally adequate for a family, and requires emptying once a year. This cost is normally paid for by the resident. It has not been made clear how the costs on the proposed site would be managed. In fact it is not clear if there is anyone responsible for emptying the tank. Failure to empty the tank would result in worse pollution than caused by the foul water run-off. We'd have to add solid sewage run-off to the problem. The provisions identified are considered inadequate and present an environmental threat to the area.

* Locating the site so near to residential areas would have a seriously detrimental impact on house prices. The increased risk of crime rates would also result in an increase in house insurance premiums.

* Flooding - The proposed site has a history of flooding. The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will therefore compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a safe and pleasant living environment/habitat. I believe that the Task Force believe that the flooding issues can be simply resolved through use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; the cost of implementing SDS on this type of site is significant and not appropriate when public expenditure must be curtailed in response to the global recession/economic climate. This could potentially lead to unjustified and ill-directed resentment from the local community towards the residents of the "planning approved" site on the basis of funding/spend by the local authority when other more pressing needs in the area are currently facing severe budget cuts.

* I understand that the Gypsy community have stated that they wish to have sites located on the outskirts of towns, near schools, close to major roads and near to medical facilities. Therefore it is clear for the reasons outlined above that this G&T community needs. It would appear that there are other locations which are much more suitable.

* While there are grants to councils towards the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, these are nowhere near enough to cover the costs. Most of this will have to be borne by local council tax payers.
* There are many people who use the local roads for walking, jogging, cycling, and horse riding. With the expected increase in traffic, as mentioned above, and the potential for an increased number of animals (e.g. dogs), these road users will be put at increased risk.
* This is an agricultural area. Since the local land is water-logged, movement of farm machinery often leaves the roads muddy. What would be considered normal traffic on a clean main road would be considered unsafe on our muddy roads, and the danger to road users will be compounded by movement of G&T site traffic.

* Why did you decide not to disperse the houses over the whole of the district? The concentrated location of large pitches in few areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash lacks social cohesion which leads to anti social behaviour and poor education performance. This majority of sites are south of the rivers and are around Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow; what kind of community is likely to be born as a result of these new pitches, especially as these are in areas with poor transport links to the areas that give the most support to the under privileged i.e. the town centres.

* We think that such a number of new sites contradicts the vision that Warwick District Council has, "providing a mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands".

* Utilities, Services (Police, Dentists, and Doctors etc.) are all stretched to the limit now. With both the major hospitals only accessible across congested bridges over the river Avon, we fear for how long it will take emergency cases to get the medical resources they need and this additional traffic will add to the congestion.

* The proposed site will be detrimental to the Health care provision for the G&T community through their remoteness from suitable capacity and suitable provision of service. It is recognised that this community will need good access to Primary, General and Specialist healthcare.

* The increase in traffic and noise arising additional, often heavy vehicles in this area will result in further pollution and add to existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington town centres. At peak times the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as the J14 M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park Drive are already grid locked, your proposed development will simply be adding to the congestion already experienced. So far you have failed to fix the current problems and there is no evidence on your part to suggest that you will, even for when this proposed development is complete.

* We see no sense in carpeting our green spaces with housing for a mobile population to travel elsewhere. Our remaining agricultural land should be preserved to feed future generations. The UK currently imports around 40% of its food - an untenable situation as identified by DEFRA's Food Chain Analysis Group in December 2006. To carry-out non-sustainable development and changing agricultural usage green field land to built environment seems irresponsible and foolhardy at a time when Climate Change, Food Security, Energy Security and the Global Economy are all at large and likely to be so for some considerable time.


* There are simply not enough schools in the area to cope with these sites; Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook Primary Schools and Myton Secondary School are already heavily oversubscribed. New and existing schools are controlled by Warwickshire County Council; therefore the District Council is unable to guarantee that the large number of school age children who will live in the proposed sites will be able to find a local school to attend. Therefore, the capacity of the Schools in the area to provide secure and stable education to families moving into/out of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a secure education to their children. The local authority have a legal duty to educate children as do their parents.
* Is it practical to expect local schools to be able to take on children as and when required? Do they have the space? Do they have the funding for these children? Due to the itinerant nature of these families' lifestyles, the children will often have difficulty keeping up or catching up with other pupils and will need the provision of extra resources like special needs teachers.

* Parents may have to travel miles in order to take their children to and from school. Alternatively, children may be required to walk long distances to and from school, which is likely to lead to an increase in truancy. This time spent travelling to and from school could be better spent actually focusing on their studies or enjoying recreational activities.

* It is very likely that many gypsy and traveller parents will have to travel to school by car. Travellers will also have to travel by car in order to reach their places of work. This will create even more morning and afternoon congestion on roads that are already extremely busy during these times. At peak times, the traffic along Europa Way (even as far as J14 of the M40), Gallows Hill, Tachbrook Road and Tachbrook Park drive, are grid locked. Your proposed developments will directly impact these roads.

* Public Transport - There is very limited public transport available in this area. The proposed site would mean residents of the G&T settlement would in reality have no alternative but to use private vehicles to travel to/from the site. The limited availability comprises only a very limited bus service, therefore if a Gypsy and Traveller site were to be established on this site it would result in an increase in the use of cars and other vehicles in the local area. This opposes a number of Warwick District Council's policies. This should be avoided both for the safety of the drivers, and the safety of children at the site.
* The huge increase in traffic in the area will result in an incredible increase in pollution and contribute to the existing air quality problems in Warwick and Leamington. The Highways Transport Development Control has estimated the potential increase in traffic to be in the order of 9 to 11 movements per pitch. Resulting in an additional 45 to 55 movements (2 way) per day on our busy local roads.
* It is interesting that the council choose to use the word "pitch" when we are considering an application for 5 "units". I do not feel it is safe to assume that an estimate made on the basis of a "pitch" equates to the same basis for a "unit"
* Even if the two terms did equate, we have to take into account that the planning application is only an illustration, and not a restriction on the use of the land. It would be quite feasible to park another 2 caravans on each "unit", thereby doubling the potential amount of traffic. This would result in 90 to 110 movements (2 way) per day.
* In order for people living in the area to travel into the town centre, it is necessary to cross the River Leam. There are currently only 3 bridges that make this possible, and these bridges can already become highly congested. Residents who move into the proposed sites will also have to travel this way in order to reach the facilities in Leamington town centre. The District Council has no control over plans for new roads or bridges and, therefore, is unable to rectify the problems they will be creating.

* Such a large number of proposed new sites in the area contradicts the very vision that Warwick District Council claims to have:

"A mix of historic towns and villages set within a rural landscape of open farmland and parklands, that have been developed a grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics, and identities, contributed towards creating high quality safe environments with low levels of waste and pollution..." (The Preferred Vision for Warwick District to 2026: Point 1, Core Strategy document, June 2009).

* Of particular concern is the Southern area of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Whitnash as the Warwick Gates development of around 1,600 homes has already placed serious pressure on the roads and schools in this area and further development will seriously exacerbate the problem.
* Road Safety/Road Access - Road access to the site is via an extremely busy "A Road", where there have been a number of accidents over the years.

* If it becomes another suburb of Leamington Spa this will reduce the quality of life for the community here in Warwick Gates, Whitnash and in Bishops Tachbrook. The proposed site and associated facilities would not be suitable nor meet the needs of the gypsy and travelling community, nor the existing communities of Warwick Gates, Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook. I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the gypsy and travelling communities and would severely compromise peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

* Employment - Employment opportunities within this area extremely limited with the demise of AP, Fords, IBM and other firms there is not the work available for incomers. Many people already leave the area to work elsewhere. A large proportion of people living on Warwick Gates commute up and down the M40 or by rail as far away as London. The proposed site would be therefore provide little opportunity for the G&T community to pursue careers and obtain employment.

* Foul Sewer: There is currently no provision on or near the site for the disposal of foul sewage into an adopted foul and surface water sewer system. Septic tanks only collect the solids, they are designed so that in principal, the foul water is allowed to overflow, run off slowly and be filtered as it passes through the ground. Septic tanks need emptying. An average septic tank is normally adequate for a family, and requires emptying once a year. This cost is normally paid for by the resident. It has not been made clear how the costs on the proposed site would be managed. In fact it is not clear if there is anyone responsible for emptying the tank. Failure to empty the tank would result in worse pollution than caused by the foul water run-off. We'd have to add solid sewage run-off to the problem. The provisions identified are considered inadequate and present an environmental threat to the area.

* Locating the site so near to residential areas would have a seriously detrimental impact on house prices. The increased risk of crime rates would also result in an increase in house insurance premiums.

* Flooding - The proposed site has a history of flooding. The proposed Gypsy and Traveller site will therefore compromise the G&T families' capability to provide a safe and pleasant living environment/habitat. I believe that the Task Force believe that the flooding issues can be simply resolved through use of Sustainable Drainage Systems; the cost of implementing SDS on this type of site is significant and not appropriate when public expenditure must be curtailed in response to the global recession/economic climate. This could potentially lead to unjustified and ill-directed resentment from the local community towards the residents of the "planning approved" site on the basis of funding/spend by the local authority when other more pressing needs in the area are currently facing severe budget cuts.

* I understand that the Gypsy community have stated that they wish to have sites located on the outskirts of towns, near schools, close to major roads and near to medical facilities. Therefore it is clear for the reasons outlined above that this G&T community needs. It would appear that there are other locations which are much more suitable.

* While there are grants to councils towards the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, these are nowhere near enough to cover the costs. Most of this will have to be borne by local council tax payers.
* There are many people who use the local roads for walking, jogging, cycling, and horse riding. With the expected increase in traffic, as mentioned above, and the potential for an increased number of animals (e.g. dogs), these road users will be put at increased risk.
* This is an agricultural area. Since the local land is water-logged, movement of farm machinery often leaves the roads muddy. What would be considered normal traffic on a clean main road would be considered unsafe on our muddy roads, and the danger to road users will be compounded by movement of G&T site traffic.

This site is remote from major amenities and therefore does not meet the requirements as set down in the relevant consultation document.

I don't believe this is at all a suitable site as it doesn't meet several of the listed criteria, most notably the first three:
1. While there is a school nearby, it is small and oversubscribed, and there are no reasonable and sustainable options for increasing capacity at the school.
2. While there is some access to public transport nearby, adding bus stops to service sites along the Fosse Way would be dangerous, due to the high speed and heavy traffic along this posted high-risk crash route.

I am opposed to the proposed development at this site.

I don't believe this is at all a suitable site as it clearly doesn't meet several of the listed criteria, most notably the first three:
- Convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport
Schools
Harbury Primary School is a small, village school which is already at capacity. The school is full for the Reception class starting this September, and was oversubscribed for the 2012 class. The ongoing development on Bush Heath Lane is already bringing additional families to the village. Bringing further development to the area which will attract families eager to send their children to the local school is not sustainable, as there is no way that the school will be able to accommodate all of the children.
Even though we live in a former farm cottage historically attached to the village, we would not have been able to send our son to our village school were it not for the decision of the governors to admit an extra class last year. As the proposed site is further from the school than we are, children living at the proposed site would not have been admitted to the local school last year. The next closest schools—Radford Semele and Bishops Tachbrook—are also operating at capacity, and are not particularly close to this proposed site, requiring car journeys during school run times on an already very busy Fosse Way.
Admitting extra classes at the Harbury Primary School is not a sustainable option for future as the school does not have adequate premises for more than one class in each year. Increasing capacity by extending the school is unlikely to be a suitable option, as traffic through the small village during the school run is already quite heavy, causing parking problems for people who need to drive their children to school and causing traffic problems for people who live near the school.
A more suitable location for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site would be near a larger school which has more capacity for a larger intake of students, or nearer to a choice of schools so there are suitable options when one of the local schools is full.
Public Transport
While bus routes do run in the area, I'm concerned about safety issues of siting additional bus stops along the Fosse Way or Harbury Lane. These roads are quite busy, and in particular the Fosse Way is already a high-risk road with several casualties each year just in this area. The Fosse Way is heavily travelled, especially during normal commute times, and unlike many roads in the area, the Fosse Way is not signposted at 50. This level of traffic plus the speed of traffic would make it hazardous to have people waiting for bus service at this proposed site.

- Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The junction of the Fosse Way and Middle Road was flooded several times this past winter, and Harbury Lane between the Fosse Way and Whitnash is notorious for flooding. Both of these roads were severely flooded to impassable at several times last year. The flooding of the road at the junction of Middle Road and the Fosse Way may actually worsen in future after the council made changes to the drainage along Middle Road earlier this year in order to improve the flow of the culverts. I don't know how the land beyond Middle Road fared, but it appears on the Ordinance Survey map to be quite low-lying.
I believe it's clear that this proposed site does not at all meet this criterion.

- Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
Several safety issues relating to the use of the Fosse Way have been touched on above, including the fact that the high speed limit and heavy traffic on the road makes it a hazardous site for bus stops.
The Fosse Way is heavily used during peak times, and turning right from Middle Road onto the Fosse Way during these times is already very difficult. Any access to a site across from Middle Road which would add cross-traffic would make that junction dangerous—as dangerous as the next junction with the Fosse Way and Harbury Lane.
The junction of the Fosse Way and Harbury Lane is already dangerous, and indeed is marked as a high-risk crash route. Further traffic on the Fosse Way or Harbury Lane would only make this junction more difficult and hazardous to use. When turning onto the Fosse Way from Harbury Lane (coming from Whitnash towards Harbury), it is difficult to position one's car to see around other cars also trying to use the junction. Adding regular use by large vehicles such as caravans would make this even more difficult and therefore, dangerous.
- Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
- Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
As outlined above, I believe this proposed site will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services, most notably the already high-risk crash route of the Fosse Way, and Harbury Primary School. A more suitable site would be on a lower-risk road with safer access to bus stops. It would ideally be located on roads with better visibility and less traffic, in order to provide safe access for users of the site and for other local road users. Finally, the local road network serving the proposed site would ideally not rely on roads which regularly flood.
The pressure on the village of Harbury, particularly as regards extra competition for already tight school places and GP appointments, would not promote a peaceful co-existence between the village and this proposed site. A more suitable site would be near a larger school with more capacity, or on a site with access to more than one local school.

3. The roads serving the proposed site flood regularly. The junction of the Fosse Way and Middle Road, and all along Harbury Lane flood regularly. The flooding situation on the other side of Middle Road may actually worsen after efforts to increase drainage along the culverts leading from Harbury.
Please find the full representation of my views in the e-mailed document.

As Chairman of Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting I have had many representaions objecting to the proposed use of this site and GT03 for Gypsies and Travellers.
The main objections are:
1. These sites are in the immediate view of Chesterton Windmill which is a heritage site visited daily by tourists from all areas because of its superb vista. This view with caravans, lorries, untidy scrap etc would be completely destroyed by the proposals
2. Harbury Lane, particularly at its junction with the Fosse Way is a very dangerous road being narrow for the volume of traffic it carries. The entry and exit of Lorries and caravans from the proposed sites would exacerbate this situation. By definition Travellers would be using these on a regular basis.
Many more reasons for objecting have been mooted but I have limited this objection to what I consider to be valid planning reasons

It would be great to be able to offer sessional youth work support to the young people on the sites. The Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs would be interested in offering such support if funded by say the Community Levy

I strongly oppose the intended Gypsy site
The proposed site is outside the catchment area of Harbury Surgery This site would be on a high risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last 3 years! Traffic at rush hour to get onto the Foss Way via middle road is already busy and the foss way is already incredibly dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic.
Harbury School and other schools in the area are over subscribed with a waiting list, and with no walk way or Bus Stop on the Foss Way or Middle Road any proposed site would be completely unacceptable and unsafe!
The site has no mains sewerage, drainage or gas so fails to meet the criteria.
The area is often flooded and very noisy from the road.
There are many businesses that operate in the surrounded area that will potentially suffer if the site goes ahead.
I strongly oppose the intended site.

By objecting on this site, I consider myself objecting to all sites in the district, although I'm sure it doesn't work like that.
Temporary sites should not be made available for travellers as a free option, these sites should make a charge for up keep and encourage them to move on ASAP. If travellers want to settle for children's education etc, then they are no longer travellers and be encouraged to buy a house and contribute to society.

I was horrified to discover the proposed plans for further development in the Whitnash area.

Over the last 10 years the green belt has been munched up by housing - Warwick Gates to mention one, factories and shops.

I understand that some of the plans propose building of houses (and sites for travellers) on green belt land at the end of golf lane and by woodside farm/ tachbrook road. After losing a wonderful view across to Warwick thanks to the building of the vast Warwick gates I feel compelled to urge you to reconsider the plans. I was bought up locally and loved living in Whitnash as it wasn't a town but was near one and it was also countrified but with excellent local facilities. Now I feel more and more 'boxed' in. The primary schools are overloaded, GP surgeries are being stretched in some areas. Extra housing will reduce the number of jobs available in the long run not forgetting the impact of pollution and disruption on the environment. We are encouraged to recycle and lessen our carbon foot print but these plans will only increase it. We now have foxes roaming the streets at night as their homes have been disturbed. It is so lovely to drive out on to tachbrook road and head towards Mallory Court Hotelas within 2 minutes you are in countryside. Also it's a very enjoyable ramble up the bridle path at the end of golf lane. I'm sure builders will be offering huge sums of money to build on land but it's all self centred greed. Whitnash is pretty much linked to Sydenham, Radford semele, and Leamington Spa. Do we need to encorporate Bishops Tachbrook as well. Our lovely area will no longer be distinguishable as being a separate entity but will be a merged blur like Coventry is. A place where I would not want to reside.

I have never voiced how I feel but I do feel very strongly about this and would feel the image of our community sliding away

I wish to register our objections to the proposed traveller sites in South Warwickshire

I wish to object against the proposed site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm for Gypsies and Travellers.
My comments and concerns are as follows:
1. Access to Local Amenities:
The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients.
The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
2. Travel:
The site is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in last 3 years.
No bus stop is available on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already busy and dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic.
No path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.
3. Rural Environment / Other:
The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
Damage to wildlife habitat.
It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and fields.
Please take these comments into consideration.

I object to the proposed traveller stite GT04 since it is unsuitable due to lack of school places and doctors facilities as well as being on a high risk travel route.

I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposals laid out in the revised development plan for traveller sites at the following locations.

Land at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Fosse Way GT02
Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane GT03
Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way GT04
Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury RoaGT05
Depot site to the west off Cubbington Hill Farm GT08

I live on the Fosse Way, near to the exhibition centre. I feel that, having three times recently become the victim of burglary, these locations further degrade the security and safety my family and the local residents.
I also believe it would add further blight to those already affected by HS2. If the exhibition centre site goes through I will have the train to one side of my property and the Gipsy site to the other. This, I believe will render my property unsellable.

I would ask that you rethink these proposals.

I would like to voice my strong objection to the proposals laid out in the revised development plan for traveller sites at the following locations.
Land at the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, Fosse Way GT02
Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane GT03
Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way GT04
Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury RoaGT05
Depot site to the west off Cubbington Hill Farm GT08
I live on the Fosse Way, near to the exhibition centre. I feel that, having three times recently become the victim of burglary, these locations further degrade the security and safety my family and the local residents.
I also believe it would add further blight to those already affected by HS2. If the exhibition centre site goes through I will have the train to one side of my property and the Gipsy site to the other. This, I believe will render my property unsellable.
I would ask that you rethink these proposals.

I appreciate the wide variety of sites to be considered. I understand that no body wants the sites near them, although they come locally to most people anyway. I feel the sites that are furthest from established homes are the best. From my perspective, GT15 is an absolutely terrible option. The ones on Harbury Lane, whilst one would prefer they were not to be there, would be more palatable in this location. Ideally, GT01 is the option I would vote for if I had a choice.

I understand from your web site that there is a Travellers Site being proposed on the land at Barnwell Farm Harbury Lane.

Please would you note my objection to this site on the following points.
1) The Fosseway is a very busy road. Especially at the 2 times of day when all the Jaguar traffic is going to and from Gaydon. It is already known as a high crash risk area and another junction at this point will increase the risk.
2) The area has a record of flooding and this area of road espeacially
3) Harbury School is already at full capacity and has a waiting list.
4) The G P Surgery is also at full capacity
5) The proposed site has no water and toilet facilities that I know of.

Reference: GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

Dear Sirs
Proposed sites for Gypsies and Travellers
My wife and I wish to object against the proposed site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way for Gypsies and Travellers.

Our comments are as follows:
1 Access to local Amenities
The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients.
The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.

2 Travel
The site is on a high risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last 3 years.
No bus stop is available on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users
The Fosse Way is already a busy and dangerous road, especially from increased Jaguar/land Rover traffic
No path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on a busy commuter routes.
Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school.

3 Rural Environments/Other
The proposed site will have a negative visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
Damage to wildlife habitat
It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and Fields


Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require verification of our objection.

I am responding to the recent proposals for the above primarily within the bishops Tachbrook area.

My neighbours and ourselves are very concerned about the proposals and our concerns have been compounded recently by the presence of what we assume were travellers in the nearby Hareway lane, where a number of vehicles including transit vans were present. The mess left afterwards was apalling yet typical of the reputation this group of people have earned from visits to the area in the past. The ambience of our beautiful village will be under serious threat if these permanent sites are allowed to proceed. The message is clear that we do not wish to have travellers in such close proximity and wish to formally register our opposition to any such plans.

I find it ironic that local authorities will not recognise the genuine homeless issue within the town of leamington spa yet is obligated to consider offering a permanent base for people whose purpose and lifestyle is to travel. It makes no sense. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and I trust these opinions can be given your conisideration

I am responding to the recent proposals for the above primarily within the bishops Tachbrook area.

My neighbours and ourselves are very concerned about the proposals and our concerns have been compounded recently by the presence of what we assume were travellers in the nearby Hareway lane, where a number of vehicles including transit vans were present. The mess left afterwards was apalling yet typical of the reputation this group of people have earned from visits to the area in the past. The ambience of our beautiful village will be under serious threat if these permanent sites are allowed to proceed. The message is clear that we do not wish to have travellers in such close proximity and wish to formally register our opposition to any such plans.

I find it ironic that local authorities will not recognise the genuine homeless issue within the town of leamington spa yet is obligated to consider offering a permanent base for people whose purpose and lifestyle is to travel. It makes no sense. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and I trust these opinions can be given your conisideration.

I am writing to express my concern and objection to the additional planned Traveller site (GT03).
As I have stated in my previous mail, Harbury is already stretched in terms of key amenities such as our local school and the doctors surgery - and this is before the additional houses are occupied which are being built in the village. I have personally struggled to get doctors appointments recently and in once case had to travel to Bishops Itchington just to see a GP due to a lack of appointments at the village surgery.
I am also concern that the proposed site would expose the travellers to unnecessary danger, as the roads around the site do not have footpaths and there is also a lack of public transport stops servicing that area.
Finally, I am also concerned about the visual and physical impact of the site on this rural area and the further influx of traffic.

Please find listed below my objections to various potential sites for gypsies and travellers identified in the consultation document that accompanies the new Local Plan for Warwick District.

GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane - Considered to be unsuitable due to:

* Location next to Harbury Lane, which is already a busy local road with queuing at peak times. The junction with the Fosse Way is also an accident black spot.
* Location south of Harbury Lane sets a precedent for development south of the local road, which should be resisted in favour of sites north of the road.
* Proximity to Mallory Court, a Grade II listing on the English Heritage database of Registered Historic Parks and Gardens in England, and the adverse effect this site will have on its setting.

GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way - Considered to be unsuitable due to:

* Proximity to overhead power lines that cross the site with potential harmful effects on health.
* Location next to the Chiltern railway between Birmingham and London, which would not create a good first impression for visitors to Leamington as they pass by on embankment and overlook the site.
* Location next to the Chiltern railway line between Birmingham and London with issues of theft and vandalism that are likely to arise.
* Location next to Harbury Lane, which is already a busy local road with queuing at peak times. The junction with the Fosse Way is also an accident black spot.
* Proximity to Mallory Court, a Grade II listing on the English Heritage database of Registered Historic Parks and Gardens in England, and the adverse effect this site will have on its setting.

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm - Considered to be unsuitable due to:

* Proximity to Bishops Tachbrook and likely conflicts that will arise with the local community.
* Obvious safety issues in creating a new access on to the Banbury Road, which is a particularly busy route close to the junction with the M40.
* Proximity to Banbury Road, an important route into Leamington and Warwick from the M40, which would not create a good first impression for visitors.

GT15 Land East of Europa Way - Considered to be unsuitable due to:

* Physical constraints arising from the small size and linear nature of the site, which greatly limits its use (parking, turning, servicing).
* Potential for flooding due to the low-lying nature of the site and its location next to a small stream that drains adjacent fishing ponds and which regularly foods in winter.
* Proximity to Europa Way, an important route into Leamington and Warwick from the M40, which would not create a good first impression for visitors.
* Obvious safety issues in creating a new access on to Europa Way, which is a particularly busy route.
* Proximity to potential residential development immediately to the northeast (south of Harbury Lane) and likely conflicts that will arise with future residents.
* Potential conflicts with future highways improvements along Europa Way, which will be necessary to accommodate proposed residential development south of Leamington and Warwick.

I trust you will take account of these objections when considering which sites to take forward into the new Local Plan.

I am writing to lodge an objection to the proposal for a travellers site GT03 off Harbury Lane. I do not believe that this land meets the local authority policy criteria:



** Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport;



The nearest doctors surgery in Harbury has no capacity for the level of additional patients that will need access to a GP surgery.



The local primary and secondary schools are already at capacity.



Although there are bus services that pass this site there is no real
safe means of the buses stopping in this location due to the high level
of traffic on Harbury Lane. Any off road bus stops would require the
use and crossing of an unpaved very busy road that already has a
significant accident record.



** Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning
and servicing on site;



This area is near the Fosse Way high risk travel route with more than

12 serious incidents in the last 3 years.



** Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other

disturbance;



The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury, from Harbury
Lane and from the

Fosse Way.



** Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste

disposal, etc);



The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.



** Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important

features of the natural and historic environment;



The are is near the historic Chesterton site



** Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the

character of the area



The site will have a visual impact from Harbury and the Fosse Way and
Harbury Lane.

Dear Sirs,

I write to voice our objection to the proposed 'gypsy' and travellers sites near Harbury.

1. There is a strong case for providing so called gypsies or itinerants with a place to stay only because they have nowhere to go and it is a big problem moving them on constantly and clearing up afterwards. The point is that in 2013 it is no longer viable or reasonable to expect to exist in this way living in caravans with no proper employment. Do you really believe these people survive on seasonal work such as was found in times gone by? We can only guess how they make their money but it is a fact that they pay no taxes and as such do not subscribe to the way of living sponsored by society in the main. Therefore the way of life should be discouraged and we would prefer to pay for housing benefit similar to any other under privileged peoples. If people decide to ride horses down the M40 we would hardly construct a lane specifically for them, it would be unreasonable in 2013 to allow this practice and there is little difference to wanting to set up communes in caravans.
2. The proposed sites are clearly prime residential locations, sited in open countryside but being within easy reach of local amenities and Leamington Spa. There is a live and let live theory but this is clearly far too biased towards one side. You have to be conscious of the developed society and how the majority have sought to establish the communities we live in. That is that more often than not the benefits of any particular location are linked to the cost of living there, mainly by the cost of the housing. This is typical of any human society founded on trade, be it money or any other currency. Why should the sites be in such highly valued locations, when ordinary people strive to achieve similar with such struggle? This is not snobbery or a 'nimby' attitude just plain laws of living which are seemed to be circumnavigated through some misplaced conscience or 'do good' feelings. Why should we not only sponsor the facilitation of sites, but also face the reduction in value of our most significant asset? It is a plain fact that the sites will cost some people hundreds of thousands of pounds and as a percentage of wealth even the 'gypsies' would object to such a plan. How can you expect people to continue to pay such high amounts of council tax dependent on their chosen style of living (ie. greater value apportioned to housing versus other asset forms - cars, jewellery etc.) when there is a section of the community paying nothing? There are plenty of suitable locations along the M40 corridor where the impact would be less or even negligible. What it seems is that the benefits for the 'gypsies' have been put way above the sacrifices of the society as a whole. Any site should not be within 1 mile of a residential property and should not impact on another community in any way.

In conclusion we object to the practice of providing any site, but can see the need in the circumstances. Given the need we object to the extremely biased and unnecessarily privileged locations being proposed.

Dear Sir or Madam
Proposed Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
We wish to object against the proposed site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm for Gypsies and Travellers.
Our comments and concerns are as follows:

1.Access to Local Amenities: The nearest doctor's surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients. The nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
2. Travel The site is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in last 3 years. No bus stop is available on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already busy and dangerous, especially from increased Jaguar/Land Rover traffic. No path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road to wait for transport to school. 3. Rural Environment / Other The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and The Fosse Way. The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage. Damage to wildlife habitat. It is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and fields.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require verification of my objection.

Re: Proposed sites GT03 and GT04

I wish to object to the proposed Gypsy/Traveller sites at the above locations for the following reasons:

The local schools and amenities are already over subscribed and stretched to capacity, - how can this area provide schools/Doctor's facilities to a travelling community?

Our local road network cannot cope already with the volume of traffic currently using the road network, a convoy of travellers vehicles moving around on a regular basis would create traffic chaos.

It would be far more suitable to create a site for this type of community in an area that could provide the amenities and services that they would require.

We write as residents of Barford in connection with the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

Development Strategy:

Our main concerns relate to the increase in traffic congestion that would be the result of any significant local residential development and the consequent increased risk of injury to pedestrian/equestrian and cycling persons. This would particularly relate to the local school children on their way to school during the morning peak time.
Church St/Bridge St, during the school term is particularly prone to congestion as the village is used as by vehicles leaving the M40 motorway in particular,in order to by pass the local motorway junction to access south Warwick/Leamington.

Because of parked vehicles in Church St large queues regularly develop on its approaches. This does cause some frustration to drivers who, we are aware, dangerously mount the pavement on the village green side of Church St to progress their journey. This situation is exacerbated by those children who are schooled in Barford and live outside of the village and whose parent(s) access the village by car and need to park up at the same time as the commuters to south Leamington are trying to pass through. The school we believe is also fully subscribedand operating at maximum child numbers. Any significant increase in local population would then require major costly redevelopment of the school.

The local plan identifies major housing development to the south of Leamington and Warwick to include new schools. To eliminate the risks (and major costs) identified above, would it not be sensible to increase the sizes of the PD sites 6 and 7 identified in the LP strategy brochure to accommodate any perceived development requirement for Barford say together with increasing the school capacity in those areas?

If the village is forced eventually to increase residential dwelling capacity, at the same time could some consideration be given to amending local roads and junctions and M40 motorway junction capacity/arrangements in order to deter Barford being used as a "rat run"from M40 and elsewhere? Perhaps in addition some meaningful traffic calming measures in Wellesbourne Rd/Bridge St, might also deter morning vehicle movement through the village from M40 and hopefully reduce what is at most times their excessive speed of travel.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

Our response relates to both the list of criteria in the WDC Response Form and the guidance on the government's aims in respect of traveller sites.

Our first comment, however, relates to how the WDC is expecting responses to be provided:-ie that Part B sheets are expected to be completed for each site. We really do not see why a generic response by letter as we are now doing is inappropriate.
There are many sites around Barford (in fact most of those in the southern area could be relevant to Barford. 15 no?) and to expect persons to return multiple documents would appear to be trying to put people off from responding.

From the outset we would confirm that we are against any gypsy/traveller sites in or around the village of Barford.

In our opinion there is not a homeowner who would agree to having a gypsy/traveller site established adjacent or near to theirexisting home. For any sites chosen close to existing residential developmentwe consider that peaceful and integrated coexistence between the two communities is unlikely to prevail. This is why we believe the sites near to Barfordidentified for further investigation (3,4,5,6,9,10,12,16,20) have been sited remotely from existing communities.
Is not the apparent remoteness of sites, however, at variance with proposals for integration and with the criteria that there is convenient access to a GP surgery (which Barford does not have), school and public transport, or provision of utilities, services, waste disposal etc. Is it not also at variance with avoiding areas that could have adverse impact on the natural environment or sites that can be integrated without harming the character of the area? The sites identified are all natural rural areas and their character will be badly affected.
For the reasons described why not locate the traveller sites within the proposed developments 6 and 7 around Warwick and 8 and 10 elsewhere.
In this way local existing communities will be minimally affected, all the "services" including schools etc will eventually be nearby to the traveller sites and the proposed integration could be better effected and sustainability will also be enhanced.
In addition the engineering aspects of drainage/flooding, safe road network etccan also be provided.
We understand that the location of traveller sites within some proposed developments has been successfully introduced by some London councils.

Can you advise also as to whether the WDC is liaising with other local councils in the provision of traveller sites.

This site fails to meet the councils Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
This site is extremely isolated.
This site could flood.
The GP Surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash 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 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.
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.
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 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, 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.
I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions and trust my objections have now been logged.

Proposed Site for Gypsies and Travellers

I wish to object to the above proposed site - GT04 at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way.

My concerns and comments are as follows:-

a. Access to Local Amenities - the nearest doctor's surgery has NO capacity for the influx of new patients and the nearest primary, junior and secondary schools are already at capacity.
b. Travel - The site is on a high risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last 3 years! There is currently no bus stop on the Fosse Way and providing one would be unsafe for road users. The Fosse Way is already a busy and dangerous road, with increased Jaguar Landrover traffic.
There is no pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is extremely dangerous on busy commuter routes. Children cannot be allowed to stand on a busy road waiting for transport to school.
c. Rural Environment/Other - The proposed site will have a visual impact from Harbury and Fosse Way.
The proposed site has no mains gas, mains sewerage or drainage.
I am also concerned about the damage to the wildlife and its habitat.
In addition to this, it is a flood risk area often flooding at the end of Middle Road, Harbury Lane and surrounding fields.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require verification of my objection