GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59635
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Kevin Mitchell
Cannot be integrated into landscape without harm to character of area. Approach to Warwick. Damage to tourism. Threat to local businesses.
Potential threat to historic Bishops Tachbrook.
Possible use of site for work and potential pollution.
Good quality arable land needed for food production.
Schools oversubscribed.
Roads are 50mph. No pedestrain footpaths or public transport links.
No safe access and dangerous for large caravans to turn in and out.
Car travel will be utilised as children cannot wait on main road for transport. Unsustainable.
Prone to flooding.
Provision of utilities questionable.
Employemnt availablity a concern.
Control of pitches.
Doctors oversubscribed.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59661
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Nigel Pugh
Very remote from main centres and no means of pedestrian access.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59691
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Andrew Christou
Access/egress is via busy road.
Site is unsuitable given lack of alternatives to car based journeys eg no paths, cycle routes.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59701
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Simon Hobson
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59711
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Catherine Wenman
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59721
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Chloe Brewer
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59731
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Michelle Brewer
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59742
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Imogen Hobson
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59752
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Chloe Hobson
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59762
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Sue Lusby
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59774
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Stanley Bowden
Access into and out of the site onto A roads is not safe.
Site does not offer ability to access local community facilities.
Loss of valuable farmland.
Barford school does not have capacity for additional children.
Site is not for sale/development.
Ex-landfill site therefore not suitable for development/occupation.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59824
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Sarah williams
Village has very few resources.
School is oversubscribed and couldn't meet demands of GT community.
Site backs onto busy road putting children and adults at risk as there are no pavements and a lack of public transport.
Very remote and no pedestrian access.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59871
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: C K & Carolyn Broadfield
No easy access to local facilities.
Increased traffic would put undue pressure on roads.
Concerned that taxes being used to provide extensive number of pitches.
Develop with new housing developments where infrastructure can be provided.
Why so many sites in a relatively small area.
On or adjacent to historic landfill site.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59893
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: P E Hunt
District council should not relinquish any land for this use. Bad experience of previous and existing sites elsewhere.
Threat to village way of life.
Encroachment into countryside.
Will planning law be relaxed similarly for other land owners?
Hazardous congestion would interfere with flow of traffic heading to M40.
Ruin approach to historic Warwick.
Such sites never enhance beauty of countryside.
GP practice busy.
School is full and there would be a need for special needs training assistants to support traveller children.
Provision by government/district council for compensation resulting from increased damage and theft that can be attributed to residents of G&T sites.
Property prices will fall.
Should be safeguard for safety and welfare of all people.
If council in control of sites, they may be more acceptable.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59894
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: P E Hunt
District council should not relinquish any land for this use. Bad experience of previous and existing sites elsewhere.
Threat to village way of life.
Encroachment into countryside.
Will planning law be relaxed similarly for other land owners?
Hazardous congestion would interfere with flow of traffic heading to M40.
Ruin approach to historic Warwick.
Such sites never enhance beauty of countryside.
GP practice busy.
School is full and there would be a need for special needs training assistants to support traveller children.
Provision by government/district council for compensation resulting from increased damage and theft that can be attributed to residents of G&T sites.
Property prices will fall.
Should be safeguard for safety and welfare of all people.
If council in control of sites, they may be more acceptable.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59914
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Helen Lavery
Cannot be integrated into landscape without harming character of the area.
Threat to historical Bishop's Tachbrook and possible damage to listed buildings.
Site on good quality agricultural land needed for food production.
Adverse impact on natural and historic environment including pollution and contamination of the Tach Brook.
Remote and with no pedestrian links/public transport.
Lack of full time GP surgery and of school places. Impact on education of existing children if educationally disadvantaged children join the school with no additional resources on offer.
Lack of employment for GT community.
Perceived increase in crime rates.
Decrease in house values. Stigma attached to such sites with knock on effects on local businesses and the tourist industry.
Site will not promote peaceful integrated co-existence.
Alarm at number of sites proposed close to Bishop's Tachbrook.
Brownfield sites should be utilised instead of green belt, countryside and english heritage. All facilities are available within the town.
Occupancy cannot be regulated. Sites to be operated by GT community and not Council means there will be no way of restricting numbers or of expansion of sites.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59923
Received: 21/10/2013
Respondent: Mr John Lawrence
Cannot be integrated into landscape without harming character of the area.
Threat to historical Bishop's Tachbrook and possible damage to listed buildings.
Site on good quality agricultural land needed for food production.
Adverse impact on natural and historic environment including pollution and contamination of the Tach Brook.
Remote and with no pedestrian links/public transport.
Lack of full time GP surgery and of school places. Impact on education of existing children if educationally disadvantaged children join the school with no additional resources on offer.
Lack of employment for GT community.
Perceived increase in crime rates.
Decrease in house values. Stigma attached to such sites with knock on effects on local businesses and the tourist industry.
Site will not promote peaceful integrated co-existence.
Alarm at number of sites proposed close to Bishop's Tachbrook.
Brownfield sites should be utilised instead of green belt, countryside and english heritage. All facilities are available within the town.
Occupancy cannot be regulated. Sites to be operated by GT community and not Council means there will be no way of restricting numbers or of expansion of sites.
See attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59929
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Karen Wood
Majority of sites proposed around Bishop's Tachbrook. Village has few resources. Most villagers commute to work. Remote site with no pedestrian access.
School is oversubscribed. Will school have resources to support children with little formal education and struggling to integrate into that environment.
Secondary school also oversubscribed.
All sites remote from employment and facilities.
Limited public transport.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59935
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Gary Wood
Majority of sites proposed around Bishop's Tachbrook. Village has few resources. Most villagers commute to work. Remote site with no pedestrian access.
School is oversubscribed. Will school have resources to support children with little formal education and struggling to integrate into that environment.
Secondary school also oversubscribed.
All sites remote from employment and facilities.
Limited public transport
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59941
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Emma Hartley
Object on the grounds that the proposals will lead to:
-damage to the historic environment and tourism
-pollution of the Tachbrook
-risk of flooding
-concerns about road safety
There is also a lack of employment opportunities and lack of school places.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59951
Received: 21/10/2013
Respondent: RAF Benson
When leaving M40, already looks awful when Travellers on site.
Will damage tourist industry.
Threat to Tach Brook from pollution.
Bishop's Tachbrook school oversubscribed.
More pressure on local resources.
Danger of more traffic collisions with entry and exit leading directly onto 50mph road.
Adverse effect on natural and historic environment.
Local resources will be stretched and health and safety compromised.
See attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 59961
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs S Hancock
Banbury Road, Warwick by-pass and M40 junctions in close proximity it is dangerous and there have been many accidents. There is no footpath. School would not be able to sustain volume of students.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60039
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Valerie Bowden
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60146
Received: 30/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Jane Canning
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Site is situated on landfill.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
No access to facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.) thereby increasing car journeys.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is expanding to accommodate current school children.
Site is unavailable and not deliverable.
Unacceptable loss of farmland and employment rendering isolated sites unviable.
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60300
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: IBM United Kingdon Limited
Remote from main facilities and centres and no pedestrian access.
Pressure on infrastructure eg school is at capacity.
Adverse impact on quality of life, property prices.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60318
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Bank
Will there be any visual impact on Bishops Tachbrook?
Will people feel as safe as they do today?
Will current infrastructure cope with additonal population?
Affects demand for residential property nearby.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60329
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Martin & Dawn Burrows
Criteria are not met.
GP surgery and school at capacity.
Unacceptable strain on current facilities.
Increased traffic a danger to children and older people. Size of vehicles increase dangers.
Many cars parked near to the school now.
Perceived increase in crime.
Intollerable affect on village and surroundings if employment also carried out on site.
see attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60379
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Gary & Tracey Howe
Number of people: 2
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
I am a resident of Bishops Tachbrook, where I live with my wife and family.
We have lived in the village for 9 years and chose the location because we wanted to live in a quiet village location away from the town centre.
I have read the WDC Revised Development Strategy (2013) and I have attended a public meeting where I viewed the WDC RDS PowerPoint presentation. What follows is my considered response to the proposed housing developments and Gypsy Traveller sites.
The RDS completely contradicts WDC's strategic vision "to make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit" (RDS 3.1).
An increase of 12300 homes will not achieve this vision and will in fact have the opposite effect for a number of reasons:
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the district is 5400. This is based on factual information derived from the national census statistics, and allows for migration. Where is the evidence to support WDC claim that 12300 homes are required?
The WDC presentation states that, in order to provide for growth of the local population (RDS 3.5), sites for 550 new homes per annum would need to be identified. Over an 18 year period this totals 9900 homes. Where does this number fit in with the 12300 WDC claim are needed to meet growth?
Why has the WDC empty home strategy not been included in the 5 year plan? WDC has developed 250 homes back to use under this strategy and further homes have been identified. http://www.emptyhomes.com/ identified approximately 1350 empty homes in the Warwick district in 2012, why isn't more work being done around this type of development of existing homes rather than proposing large scale new developments. There does not appear to be any mention of empty homes into RDS.
Warwick District currently has a very low unemployment rate, with only 1.6% unemployment (claiming JSA). If some of the proposed development is about economic growth where is the evidence to show that people moving into the area will be able to find work?
Much of the employment land in the district has not been fulfilled and may subsequently become land for housing but where are the jobs for the people moving into the area?
I have heard the growth of Jaguar Land rover cited as a employment opportunity which would require homes for employees moving to the area. However, the WDC RDS does not take account for the fact that Stratford District Council are in the process of consulting on a proposed development of 4800 homes in the Gaydon and Lighthorne area. This would be closer to the JLR than any of the Warwick District developments in terms of homes for JLR employees.
Why have WDC and SDC not communicated about their development plans when they are so close? As a Bishops Tachbrook resident we will also be affected by the SDC plans as any commuters and/or visitors to Warwick and Leamington from the new developments will increase the traffic and associated problems, noise/ air pollination etc.
The visual impact on the view from Bishops Tachbrook, Harbury Lane, Tachbrook Valley, Gallows Hill will be hugely significant for existing residents but also visitors to the area. No amount of 'country park' can make up for the loss of beautiful countryside and open fields which would be lost to thousands of homes and the associated environmental impacts such as noise and light (from houses, cars and street lighting). The planning inspector who reviewed the current plan in 2006 said that Woodside Farm should not be built on then or in the future. The WDC's own landscape consultant, Richard Morrish, said in the Landscape Area Statement (2009) referring to the land south of Gallows Hill "this study area should not be considered for urban extension and the rural character should be safeguarded from development". The RDS goes against this recommendation, why?
The local infrastructure cannot support such a significant number of houses in one area. The Southern Site already has significant issues in terms of volume and flow of traffic. The RDS does not contain any evidence to show that the proposed infrastructure improvements would alleviate any of the problems that would come with such a large development. No number of dual carriage ways will improve the flow of traffic through the 'pinch points' such as crossings of canals, rivers and railways and the RDS does not provide any realistically deliverable to solutions to these problems. There are major problems for traffic trying to get into Leamington on weekday mornings when the traffic backs up all the way onto the main carriage way on the M40. Appendix E of the Warwick Strategic Transport Phase 3 Assessment shows traffic speeds of only 0-10 mph in large parts of Warwick. Any increase in traffic, never mind the exceptionally large numbers proposed in the RDS, will make this situation worse. Rather than increasing trade in the town centre it is likely that people would be put off visiting the shops because of the volume of traffic. This view was supported by the Chairperson of the Warwick Chamber of Trade, who echoed this point at the public meeting I attended.
A lot can be learnt from previous developments in terms of the volume of traffics. The Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow developments prove that the people who move onto these developments will use their car to commute to/from work and to/from shops and town centres. The bus services serving these developments are not self funding and rely on subsidies to run. It would be naive and idealistic to think that this would be any different on new developments. Most houses have more than one car and most people will drive to work. The location of the Southern Site development would require most residents to commute to work.
A lot can also be learnt about sites identified on plans for facilities such as schools and play areas which are not followed through. The Warwick Gates plans contained a site for a school which was never built. This subsequently but huge pressure on surrounding schools and thee is still and annual scrabble for places amongst the Warwick Gates residents who have a nervous wait to see if their child will get their preferred option. Therefore I have no faith that if the proposed plans go ahead the schools will come to fruition. Similarly, the Chase Meadow development had a playground site on the plans and again this was not built. Also many of the properties on both of these developments are rented out and therefore not lived in by the people who bought them.
One of my main concerns is the health implications. I have read the Local Air Quality Progress Report (2011) and the areas already identified in this report as 'Air Quality Management Areas' will be affected by an increase in traffic volume as a result of the proposed developments. As the Air Quality is covered by the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (amended 2002) and the Environment Act 1995 as well as various other legislation I cannot understand why a full Health Impact Survey has not been commissioned. How does WDC know that the proposed developments will not take air pollution levels above the legal limits. It is not acceptable to just go ahead and worry retrospectively when we are talking about serious health implications. Many schools, nurseries and parks are in the vicinity of the Southern Site and the Heath of the children who use these facilities could be at risk if this goes ahead without a full assembly of the potential impact of such a large development. I seriously worry about the effect on my children's health and other children in the area. In my opinion this should take priority over everything else and I am extremely disappointed that WDC are not giving due consideration to this aspect of the impact on local residents.
In terms of Bishops Tachbrook, the village is already a cut through for many vehicles on their way to/ from the M40. When I walk my dog in the morning there is a disproportionate amount of traffic travelling through the main roads in the village, in comparison to the number of residents. Speeding along these roads has always been an issue and the speed reduction measures are ineffective. Mallory road leading to the Banbury road is also prone to flooding and has sometimes been impassable. There have been no improvements made to the road systems or pavements since the development of Warwick Gates and I see no acknowledgement of this need in the RDS. This is yet another example of WDC failing to recognise and consider the wide reaching impact of large scale housing developments on existing infrastructures. If the proposed develop goes ahead it will increase the volume of traffic through Bishops Tachbrook and that will increase the risk to residents of Bishops Tachbrook as there are no proposed improvements.
The housing proposed for village settlements has categorised Bishops Tachbrook as the largest type (100-150 homes). The Bishops Tachbrook housing needs survey identified a need for only 14 homes. Again, where is the evidence to support the need for 100-150 homes? Why would this many houses be needed in the village when 3400 homes are proposed for the Southern Site development? With regards to the visual, environmental and infrastructure issues I echo what I have said in the above paragraphs.
Why are we insistently building on prime agricultural land? Surely this land is needed to feed the ever growing population of the country or we will become more reliant on importing food and pushing prices up even further. Obviously the developers prefer this option as it's easier and means more profit for them.
I have read the criteria for the sites for Gypsy and Travellers from the consultation document. I do not think that the proposed sites are distributed evenly around the district and again the south contains a disproportionate number. All of the above points I have raised would also apply to the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site in this area.
In terms of the relevant criteria I do not consider the following sites to be suitable:
Site 3: this site is very remote and does not have easy access to facilities, access, pedestrian access and is prone to flooding.
Site 4: as above.
Site 5: The access is onto a very busy road and there is no pedestrian access. There would be a visual impact on the approach to Warwick and there is a listed building on the site. There would be undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services of such a small village.
Site 6: has no pedestrian access and is very remote in relation to distance from main centres and services.
Site 9: there would be a visual impact on the approach into Warwick and there are listed buildings on the site. The access is onto a busy road and there is no pedestrian access.
Site 10: Too close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre.
Site 15: This site is located on the banks of the Tachbrook. As the proposed site may be used as a place of work there could be a risk of contamination.
The school in Bishops Tachbrook has one class of approximately 30 children per intake. A GT site of 5,10 or 15 could be home to 10, 20 or 30 children. As Bishops Tachbrook is a small school already at capacity is could not support the needs of the site. There are other schools in the district that are not at capacity that could support the need.
The sites around Bishops Tachbrook are too remote to support the development and the village and its facilities are not big enough to support such an increase in population, in terms of infrastructure and facilities.
I am also concerned about the negative impact these sites will have on local house prices and increases in house and car insurance. Statistics show a rise in crime rates.
I understand the requirement for WDC to provide 31 pitches but I strongly feel that a larger number of smaller sites evenly distributed across the district in areas where the existing facilities can accommodate the need is the most appropriate way to meet the requirements.
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60389
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Christos Christou
Access/egress is via busy road.
Site is unsuitable given lack of alternatives to car based journeys eg no paths, cycle routes.
see-attached
Object
Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
Representation ID: 60448
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Denise Hobson
Site is situated on historic landfill and may release greenhouse gases.
Adjoins The Asps which WDC previously concluded should remain undeveloped, particularly given the impact Warwick Castle and its park.
Deer roam freely from Castle Grounds to this site.
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site.
Local facilities cannot be accessed on foot, bike or public transport thereby increasing reliance on car journeys which adds to pressure on highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
Will lead to loss of farmland and rural employment making such sites isolated sites unviable.
Negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is already having to expand. Further influx will reduce places for local residents.
Disregards Rural Area Policies: RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites).
Adverse visual impact and cannot successfully be integrated into the landscape.
Site does not allow for peaceful co-existence with community.
see attached