GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road

see attached

see attached

I would like to raise concerns about proposals in WDC consultation document which will adversely affect the rural village community of Baginton.

Gateway.

This is an inappropriate and unsustainable development. There are no special circumstances for the use of Green Belt land for this proposed development. Hence the local plan should not include references to the Gateway.


Traveller sites

There are already three traveller sites near to those proposed in Baginton and hence the proposal of sites in Baginton does not fulfil the strategy of distributing developments across the district.

The proposed traveller sites in Baginton represent inappropriate development of Green Belt Land.

The proposed sites are not in easy reach of facilities such as schools, doctors, hospitals etc and public transport links are poor. Access to the village from the proposed sites has no suitable footpath.

The proposed Stoneleigh Road site is that of a local rural business. This business would be adversely affected by forced loss of land and this is unacceptable when there are other more suitable sites available.

Alternative proposed sites South of Warwick have better access to facilities, would lead to a more even distribution of sites across the district, would not lead to the loss of green belt land and would not have an adverse impact on a local rural business. Therefore these sites would be more appropriate that those proposed in Baginton.


Housing

The proposal of building 70-80 new houses in Baginton is a disproportionate increase for the size of the village. The local plan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages but should take into account village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of our Parish Plan and Housing needs Survey identify a maximum of 20 houses and this figure should be used in
preference to the proposals in the consultation document.

I urge you to reconsider these proposals.

I write to lodge an objection in the most vigorous terms to any proposal to place a gypsy and traveller site within the environs of Baginton Village, Warwickshire.


But first, having had access to the booklet produced about the Local Plan by Warwick District Council, dated June 2013, I feel I must comment concerning the portrayal of gypsy and traveller sites within the booklet, in particular the photographs included. I have personally been onto several gypsy and traveller sites, both private and local authority, both legal and illegal, and have seen many others through TV and other media. I have NEVER seen one even vaguely similar to the photographs within your booklet - there are no dogs, no gas canisters, no children, no vehicles, no toilet blocks or other facilities, no pushchairs, no bikes, no rubbish disposal facility - indeed no rubbish - the grass is tended, there is no tarmac and no sign of how the gypsies/travellers earn their living.

To me, this calls into question the integrity of Warwick District Council and the whole project, there clearly is NOT a policy of HONESTY in dealing with or promoting these uncomfortable issues. Of course, if you can tell me at what gypsy and traveller site the photographs were taken and when, I would have an opportunity of viewing this exemplary site myself and might well have to apologise for stating that I doubt the integrity of the project. I very much doubt that will occur, but would be interested in the comments of the producers of the booklet.



Back to my objections:


Baginton is a small semi rural village, sitting on the Warwickshire/West Midlands border which already this year has been bombarded with the Gateway planning scheme which was approved despite the numerous objections and concerns of villagers. This is far too much development in a short period of time for a small community.


The map showing the area proposed is many acres - is this the reality of what is proposed or another inaccuracy? Presuming it is accurate, then the size will result in is becoming a dominant feature within the village, vastly increasing the size of the village population with no corresponding increased supply of amenities or funding.


It would heavily affect several businesses in the village - in particular the village pubs which due to the proximity of at least one of them to the site would run the risk of becoming the 'local' of the gypsies/travellers - I'm very afraid that however it was packaged it would result in the villagers being uncomfortable in the pub and ultimately reducing their use of it.


The schools within the catchment area for Baginton children are already over subscribed and local children often unable to attend the school of their first choice. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair to allocate a number of places to children of travellers who may or may not be present to attend the school, when there are local full time residents who require those permanent places.


There is believed to be a link between crime and gypsy & traveller sites - which would adversely affect the local community, but even more the perception of crime due to the site will drive down the value and desirability of property in the area - something which is already affected by the aforementioned Gateway scheme.


To place this type of scheme within the heart of a small community will result in seriously strained community relations - gypsies and travellers are notorious for their lack of engagement outside of their own community and there is no reason to expect this to change - and the quality of life for both residents at the proposed site and the current village inhabitants will be seriously detrimentally affected.


Finally, it is apparent from the map of the whole county that the majority of the proposed sites are at the far reaches of the county - and it is clear that other counties agree with this strategy (ie Siskin Drive traveller site is on the West Midlands/ Warwickshire border) so anywhere on the edge of a county is disproportionally disadvantaged in this issue. Is there a reason for this strategy? Surely sites should be spread equally around the counties - and hence the country - taking into account the location of neighbouring counties' sites rather than clustering them on the edges of the county - very close to the ones on the neighbouring county. Siskin Drive traveller site (owned by West Midlands) is within two miles of Baginton village - which means we are already affected to a certain extent by a gypsy/traveller community - surely a more equal geographic spread would benefit the gypsy/ traveller community, which is after all, the community you are seeking to support in this plan. A site NOT within two miles of an existing site (regardless of the owning district council) would be far more appropriate.

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre:
Due to existing development, access would likely have to be taken from an existing private access
road. Without confirmation as to whether this would be permitted, the Highway Authority cannot
recommend a good place to gain access to the site from the existing Public Highway.
GT02 Land at Warwickshire Exhibition Centre:
If access were to be taken from the Fosse Way a new access would need to be created a minimum
215m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would also need to be 2.4m x 215m in
both directions. It is considered that an access to meet these requirements could potentially be
achieved. If access were to be taken from the A425, a new access would need to be created a
minimum 160m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would need to be 2.4m x
160m in both directions. Although potentially achievable the removal of a significant amount of
vegetation/hedgerow may be required.
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access. The existing access to Barnwell Farm is considered to be a
good location however; cutting back/removal of hedgerow is likely to be required in order to achieve
the required level of visibility.
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access.
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road:
Access taken from the A452 would require visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m. Use of the existing
Tachbrook Hill Farm access would not be recommended as it is sited opposite an existing junction
and it would not be recommended to locate the access any closer towards the Motorway junction. If
access were to be created northwest of the existing Tachbrook Hill Farm access it should be done so
in advance of the existing traffic calming features. Access from Mallory Road would not be
recommended. It should also be noted that there may be issues regarding forward visibility due the
existing vertical alignment of the road. Forward visibility to match visibility from the access would be
required at all sites (160m in this instance).
GT06 Land at Park Farm:
Access created from the A425 would need to have visibility of 2.4m x 215m in both directions. The
existing access to Park Farm is likely to meet this standard. If a new access is to be created it is
unlikely that an access could be created any closer to the existing roundabout without the
requirement for removal of hedgerow/trees. Any access created North West of the Park Farm access
must adhere to the required visibility standards. The access should not be created in proximity of the
existing layby on the A425.
GT07 Land at Smiths Nurseries Stoneleigh Road:
Access from the Stoneleigh Road is unlikely to be achievable due to visibility restrictions unless taken
from Smiths Nurseries. Even then it would have to be demonstrated that the proposed site was
unlikely to generate significantly more vehicle movements than the existing development (and that
it has not caused a Highway safety/operation issue). From Coventry Road (within 30mph limit) it may
be difficult to achieve access due to proliferation of existing accesses. Splays of 2.4m x 70m would be
required in both directions.
GT08 Depot to west side of Cubbington Hill Farm:
Leicester Lane is subject to a speed limit of XX. An access with visibility splays of 2.4m x xxxm would
therefore be required with equal corresponding forward visibility. It is considered that this should be
achievable at this site.
GT09 Land to North East of M40:
The A452 is subject to a speed limit of XX. The Highway Authority considers that achieving an access
to standard from the A452 would be difficult due to road alignment. Creation of an access onto the
Warwick By-Pass would not be supported.
GT10 Land at Tollgate House & Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre:
Gaining access from the B4100 is considered to be difficult due to existing accesses/lay-bys which
makes it difficult to find a suitable location for creation of a new access. Access from Oakley Wood
road is considered unsuitable and an access with required visibility standards unlikely to be
achievable.
GT11: Land at Budbrooke Lodge Racecourse and Hampton Road:
Land west of Warwick Racecourse - Access from the point of the existing access for Budbrooke
Lodge should be feasible. You would need to ensure that visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m can be
provided in both directions due to the access emerging onto a 50mph section of Highway. There
already appears to be a reasonable pedestrian connection to this point too.
GT12: Land at Westham House, Westham Lane
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
GT13: Kites Nest Lane:
Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane are subject to a derestricted speed limit and although it is
acknowledged that vehicles are unlikely to be travelling at 60mph on either of these roads, a speed
survey would be required to establish the level of visibility required and this would ultimately
determine whether an access was feasible or not. In addition both roads are narrow and, depending
on the size of the site, some level of localised widening may be required.
GT14: Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey:
Warwick Road is subject to a derestricted speed limit and visibility from the existing access does not
meet standards of 2.4m x 215m. If it can however be demonstrated that vehicle movements from
the proposed development will not exceed that which could be generated by the existing permitted
development (and that the existing access has not caused a highway safety issues), use of the
existing access may be acceptable.
GT15: Land to east of Europa Way:
This section of the A452 is subject to a speed limit of 50mph and accordingly, splays and forward
visibility of 160m must be provided. It is considered that, with removal of vegetation, this should be
achievable at some point along the boundary line shown.
GT16 Land West of A429 Barford:
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
If access directly from the bypass is proposed this would be subject to splays of 2.4m x 215m being
achieved and an access road being constructed to meet highway standards (subject to no objections
being raised from Warwickshire transport operation team about the creation of a new access onto
the bypass).
GT17: Service area West of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT18: Service area East of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT19: Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (Oaklands Farm):
The access would be taken from a section of highway subject to a 40mph speed limit. Accordingly,
splays of 2.4m x 120m should be achieved and 120m forward visibility be achieved on both
approaches. The Highway Authority considers that this visibility is likely to be achievable at some
point along the proposed site boundary.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40:
The B4463 is subject to a derestricted speed limit and accordingly, visibility of 2.4m x 215m must be
provided unless a speed survey can demonstrate actual speeds are less than this. The Highway
Authority considers that it is unlikely that visibility for a new access can be achieved without a speed
survey being undertaken. Access should not be taken closer than 215m from the roundabout
junction.
Disclaimer
Please note that the site assessments have been made following desktop studies only using various
software packages. It is likely that all comments accurately reflect the requirements of each site
however, in some circumstances the speed limit may have changed. For reference please note the
following basic visibility requirements set against posted speed limits:
Derestricted/60mph - 2.4m x 215m, Forward visibility of 215m.
50mph - 2.4m x 160m, Forward visibility of 160m
40mph - 2.4m x 120m, Forward visibility of 120m
30mph - 2.4m x 90m*, Forward visibility of 90m*
*absolute maximum - splays of 70m & 43m could also be applied depending on site location.

I am writing to strongly object to the Development Strategy planned for Baginton Village.

1. Gateway

The Gateway is an unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt land with no very special circumstances. It will have a very great affect on the quality of life within the village and cause an unnecessary increase in traffic through the village particularly Mill Hill. The bridge in Mill Hill will certainly not be able to cope with the increase number of buses proposed to service the commercial businesses planned. There is plenty of commercial land around this area that could be used for commercial development without impacting on our rural community.

2. Housing

Although, I welcome the development of new housing within the village particularly affordable housing, I totally disagree with the proposal put forward of 70-90 houses, a more realistic number would be 20. The Local Pan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages, but should take into account individual village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of Baginton Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used in preference to the proposals in the consultation document.

3. Gypsy & Traveller site Options

The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 & G107) are an inappropriate Development of the Green Belt. The consultation documents identify major negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of several sewage treatment works, with the associated noise, light and air quality effects.

The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors, schools, hospitals etc and there is poor public transport provision. Access from the sites to the village along the grass verges are unsuitable for pushchairs, wheelchairs etc.

There are already three sites within a few miles of Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore, the proposed sites do not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing development across the District".

The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact on a rural business by forcing them to give up part of their land for such a development, when there are more suitable sites.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable options to the two proposed in the Baginton parish as they are outside the Green Belt, they also have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a rural businesses and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

I moved to Baginton with my family nearly 3years ago at considerable financial costs so that I and my family could enjoy the benefits of living within a rural community. Since moving here the village of Baginton has continually had to fight Warwick District Council over a number of proposed developments. Can you please take into account that this is a village and not an overspill from Coventry and I would very much like to enjoy the rural setting we now enjoy!!!

Dear sirs,

We wish to register our objections to the local plans G101 & G107.
Baginton does not have the infrastructure, medical facilities or schools to support a traveller site.

We already have three sites within a small area and cannot sustain another. Businesses would be adversly affected especially Smiths Garden Centre.
The Intransit trucks have problems getting through the village,as it is, which will be compounded dangerously so should this go ahead.

P. S. we are in full agreement with our democratically elected Parish Council.

Dear Sirs please take note of my objection to the proposed Gypsy Traveller site Options.
For the reasons mentioned Below;

* The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 & G107) are
inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The consultation documents
identify major negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land
and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of
several sewage treatment works, with the. associated noise, light and air quality
effects.
* The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors,
schools, hospitals etc and there is poor public transport provision. Access from
the sites to the village along the grass verges are not suitable for pushchairs,
wheelchairs or use by the infirm.
* There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in
Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore the
proposed sites do not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing
development across the District".
The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of
the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact a rural business by
forcing them to give up part of their land for such a development, when there are
more suitable sites.
* The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable
options to the two proposed in Baginton parish as they are outside the Green
Belt, have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a
rural business and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached