GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Looking through the list of possible sites I noted one ''adjacent' to the Guide Dog Breeding Centre at Bishops Tachbrook.

I was manager at Tollgate House for 15 years. During that time a group of travellers parked in the now defunct lay by alongside our land. Although the humans were not a particular problem their dogs caused considerable worries.

They were there for around twelve months and during that period the dogs would be seen exploring our kennel complex. I learned that a local vet was treating several for sarcoptic mange and parvovirus. Both are highly contagious conditions.

The future of Guide Dogs in the UK rests with their unique breeding scheme producing healthy puppies in sufficient numbers.

Anything which risks this must is to be avoided at all costs.

I object to this site due to it's proximity to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Breeding Centre.

Not sustainable - no facilities/settlement. Noise from M40 and highway issues. Good agricultural land.

This location is rural land between the M40 and the Banbury Road. Already partly developed by the Guide Dogs for the Blind training centre.

Seems likely to harm the peaceful character of the area and hence adversely affect the Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre. Noise from the M40 must affect parts of this area.

Site GT10 is unsuitable and unsustainable as a Gypsy & Traveller Site.

The site does not have convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport.

Other suggested sites are more suitable and more sustainable - Sites 1, 11 18 and 17. These sites are more accessible to the major urban areas and accordingly more sustainable.

* 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.

* 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 close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre and has access onto a busy main road. The local schools would also be unable to accommodate the likely increase in pupil numbers.

It is understood that this site is a former landfill site.

Local services, facilities, medical care and schools cannot accommodate further development of this type and there would be many effects on what is a well established settled community.

Local services, facilities, medical care and schools cannot accommodate further development of this type and there would be many effects on what is a well established settled community.

Object strongly to the allocation of site GT10 as it will cause a strain on the local community on a social, economic and environmental basis.

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

This site is adjacent to a turkey farm and a dog breeding centre, it is wholly inappropriate for a gypsy & travellers site.

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

Looking through the list of possible sites I noted one ''adjacent' to the Guide Dog Breeding Centre at Bishops Tachbrook.
I was manager at Tollgate House for 15 years. During that time a group of travellers parked in the now defunct lay by alongside our land. Although the humans were not a particular problem their dogs caused considerable worries.
They were there for around twelve months and during that period the dogs would be seen exploring our kennel complex. I learned that a local vet was treating several for sarcoptic mange and parvovirus. Both are highly contagious conditions.
The future of Guide Dogs in the UK rests with their unique breeding scheme producing healthy puppies in sufficient numbers.
Anything which risks this must is to be avoided at all costs.

I would like to make the following comments regarding the proposals particularly for the sites around Bishops Tachbrook where I live.


The school at Bishops Tachbrook is already over subscribed where on occasion siblings cannot get into the same school as their elder brother or sisters.

The doctors surgery in the village is already heavily used and I question if they can handle any more patients.

The interviews indicate that the gypsies do not admit they have children as they do not send them to schools so if we offer gypsy children places at school and they do not attend they are denying another child a place.

I question your numbers how can they be 11 in 2008 from a West Midlands assessment, going up to 23 from the regional spatial strategy date unknown then increasing again to 31 in 2012 from the Salford University. Why do you not try one small site and see how it goes.

The government is going by the regional spatial strategy so I question why you spent additional monies on the Salford report.

What consideration has been given to the costs of all the proposed sites usually when you are purchasing something and have options costs is one of the first considerations. What funding do you have for these sites?

The value of our properties would go down as no one wants to live near to a gypsy site. I have heard of the blatant theft of items from the Co op shop on Warwick Gates by gypsies from more than one source.

I do not believe site 10 is suitable as it is so close to the guide dogs breeding ground and gypsy dogs could enter the site and spread disease to the breeding dogs.

Plot 5 is also too close to the dogs also and to the village of Bishops Tachbrook.

My concern is that other areas who have made provision for gypsies have had an increase in the number of gypsies in that area

I would like to object to the gypsy and traveller site options near Bishops Tachbrook. I have tried to do this online but although I can find the documents to read, I cannot find where to click to object. If this email is not enough to register my objection, please reply with an exact link.

I wish to register my objection to the traveller sites across South Warwickshire as I believe that the local community will be seriously impacted due to the excess cars, caravans etc

see attached


Where did you hear about this consultation: direct from Warwick District Council



Part B - Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

I Errol A. Mews FRICS, Consultant Surveyor with Tayler & Fletcher represent Mr. and Mrs. Brian and Angela Lewis Hill Farm, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV33 9QG and I set out below his objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm and sites on GT09 and GT10.

Brian and Angela Lewis live at Hill Farm, Banbury Road, Bishops Tachbrook which is within GT05 and partly within GT10 and in total is approximately 90 acres together with the farmhouse and agricultural farm buildings. Hill Farm is predominantly a livestock farm with suckler cows and calves, breeding ewes and lambs with fattening cattle and lambs for market. The Lewis family have been at Hill Farm for over 30 years.

Further objection is on the following grounds:

Farming Enterprise and Agriculture
This part of Warwickshire is predominantly livestock breeding and fattening animals, suckler cow herds and calves, breeding ewes and lambs, free range turkey breeding and pheasant rearing. GT10 has a National Guide Dog Breeding Centre. Gypsy and Traveller Sites often have many many dogs of the lurcher/greyhound type and very often those type of dogs worry sheep and cattle and free range poultry. They are also liable to provide disease.

Highways and Safety Issues
GT05 and GT10 have a long frontage to the M40 motorway and in this particular section there have been a number of accidents where cars and lorries have gone off the motorway and crashed through the motorway fence. GT05 and GT10 also have a long frontage to the B4100 main road which is extremely busy with cars going to and from Gaydon Motor Centre where Jaguar/Landrover and Aston Martin are based. GT05 and the other neighbouring sites are adjacent to two half motorway junctions numbers 13 and 14. These junctions are extremely busy with all types of vehicles entering and leaving the M40 motorway with access to Leamington Spa, Warwick and elsewhere. The roads leading on to the B4100 are also potentially dangerous on the road safety angle. Gypsy Traveller Sites always have large towing caravans and anywhere along the B4100 and the adjoining roads provide a particularly dangerous hazard with slow moving vehicles entering or exiting a main road.

Services and Utilities
There is no main gas and no main drainage in the area

Rural Landscape
The area around GT05 is basically rural and agricultural and any proposed site will be a major invasion to the openess of the countryside.and therefore will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area.

Ecology and Wildlife Habitat
In close proximity to GT05 is Oakley Wood which is a 110 acre site owned by Warwick District Council. It was purchased for amenity and lifestyle living. If a Gypsy and Traveller Site was provide in the area, then the very purpose and use of Oakley Wood could be jeopardised if lurcher dogs were loose and firewood was collected for traditional Gypsy and Traveller fires on the pitches. Oakley Wood therefore would be a fire hazard.


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT09 - Land to the North East of M40

As my clients have lived in the area for over 30 years they are aware of Red House Farm which forms the majority of the land within GT09. My client wishes to support the objection of Brian and Angela Smith, owner occupiers of Red House Farm and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site Options on GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Some of the land is owned and farmed by Charles and Helen Hammond. My clients wish to support the objection of Charles and Helen Hammond and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

Please acknowledge this objection

see attached

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers Consultation Document
29th July 2013
1. Meeting the Need for Sites for the Gypsy and Traveller Community
a) The Parish Council understands both the issues facing the Gypsy and
Traveller community as set out in Section 4 of the consultation
document and the District's legal obligation to provide for that need.
b) In order to meet those needs it is very important that the final sites
selected fully address the Issues and completely meet the site
requirements as set out in Section 7.
c) In summary with the level of information provided, the sites proposed
fall far short of meeting the site requirements and will therefore fail to
address the underlying issues to the extent required. Therefore the
Parish Council cannot support any of the sites within its boundary.
Namely GT03, GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, and GT15.
d) Please refer to the attached report commissioned by the Parish Council
from its consultants LinkUK ref DM1292, dated 29th July which sets out
the areas of concern in more detail.
2. Comments on Consultation
a) It is a concern to the Parish Council that the Gypsy and Traveller Site
Document not listed as a "consultation document" on the WDC website.
It is listed in the supporting documentation list. It is also noted that it is
listed at the bottom of the New Local Plan page as "Other
consultations" but is not given equal billing with the RDS. Many
residents have said that they were not aware of the proposals or
consultation and this may be a factor.
b) The Parish Council is very concerned at the Gypsy and Traveller site
consultation document is misleading, as most of the photos are taken
at touring caravan sites and do not accurately portray typical visual
impact of a permanent traveller site. There are no photos depicting
mobile homes, commercial vehicles and plant which are all very typical
of this type of development. It is very important that consultation
documents represent the proposals accurately. Thought must be given
to how this rectified to give residents a realistic picture of what these
developments can look like so that consultees can make a realistic
assessment of visual impact.
c) The Parish Council is concerned that the consultation process is so
brief in comparison to the new local plan. Consequently, apart from
setting out the background and site selection requirements little has
been done so far to help residents understand what to potential
impacts on a local settled community are and how sites would
allocated and be taken up.
i) Are there specific Gypsy and Traveller Groups that have been
identified and are on a waiting list for sites?
ii) Wouldn't it be useful for community representatives to be given the
opportunity to meet representatives of these groups and the WDC
liaison officer?
1. The Salford University Study, commissioned by Warwick District
Council states in its Final Report Gypsy Traveller and Travelling
Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment (GTTSANA
Nov.2012) dated November 2012, states:
Policy A of 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' states that in
assembling the evidence base necessary to support their
planning approach, local planning authorities should: pay
particular attention to early and effective community
engagement with both settled and traveller communities
(including discussing travellers' accommodation needs with
travellers themselves, their representative bodies and local
support groups)
The event organised earlier this year by WDC was a tentative
start, but it was not held against the backdrop of specific sites.
2. It is therefore seen as a major negative that 8 months after the
publication there has been no engagement with the local
community on the specifics of the consultation.
d) Residents have expressed concerns to the Parish Council, fuelled by
the media including a recent TV documentary. The WDC consultation
has not assisted in reassuring residents about these concerns.
e) The consultation to date has focused entirely on planning issues of the
government requirements and site selection. There has been no focus
on the people issues outlined above. The Parish Council believes that
WDC should be going to far greater lengths during this consultation
process to help residents understand the reality of living close to a
Gypsy or Traveller Site. In doing this WDC may help to alleviate some
of the concerns expressed by residents.
3. Proposed Operating Model for Gypsy and Traveller Sites
a) No assurances are given about how sites would be managed day to
day. Each pitch is very large. Whilst a 5 pitch site would be allocated to
house 5 families, there appear to be no controls to prevent the
numbers on the site swelling to many times this number. It has been
said that planning enforcement can deal with this. However there could
be a continuous stream of visiting families pitching up on the plots that
are sized to take touring caravans and other vehicles along with a
permanent mobile home. Planning enforcement processes would not
necessarily be triggered and if they were, can take years to take effect.
b) There are also concerns that if the sites are managed entirely by
market forces, requirement to meet the provision of a permanent site
for all Gypsy families may not be met, due to the high level of rents that
may be charged. The Districts own study GTTSANA Nov.2012 points
to this.
7.14......One respondent in the survey commented on the general
issue of affordability, but also the lack of sites in the area: "I have
two sons and when they get married there are no sites round here.
Some of the travelling men who own sites want to charge too much
rent, that's why we're in a house. We need more council sites".
c) The districts proposed operating model of self management by a
Gypsy landlord is very weak in this regard and presents a high risk to
the successful long term management of a site and the WDC
objectives being met.
d) The Parish Council therefore objects strongly to the District preferred
self management operating model, and would require WDC to manage
to site(s) day to day, or to devolved the operation to a housing
associated or RSL, to ensure that rents are affordable and occupation
levels are maintained the consented levels.
4. Independent Assessment - Initial Feedback
a) The Parish Council has commissioned specialist consultants LinkUK to
undertake and independent assessment of the sites within the
boundary of Bishops Tachbrook Parish. The report is appended. The
Parish Council wishes to adopted all recommendations which can be
summarised as follows:
i) At this early stage there is insufficient evidence to make a valid
judgement on the suitability of the sites identified within the parish
boundary.
ii) Sites should be assessed and rated in accordance with the Issues
identified as affecting the Gypsy and Traveller Community and with
enhanced weighting given to the most concerning issues, access to
health and education
iii) Therefore is not possible to give further consideration to these sites
until the further studies and evidence highlighted has been made
available
b) The initial assessment by Link UK will be supplemented with a
Planning Consultant opinion. The Parish Council will be in receipt of
that report towards the end of August and will forward as a
supplementary submission.
5. Specific Concerns Identified So Far.
a) Impact on Infrastructure and Services
i) It is not set out in the proposals where children, living on any of the
proposed sites in the future, would go to school.
(1) Bishops Tachbrook Primary School is a single form entry school.
The Parish Council is extremely concerned the that special
education needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community, as set
out in Section 4 of the consultation document cannot be properly
met at a small school. Therefore one of the most critical
objectives in the provision of a place for permanent residence
will not be met.
(2) Because the significant additional support required will not be
funded by the County, (except for the minimal budget
supplement provided to those receiving free school meals,
which there is no guarantee will apply in this case) there is also
the potential for a drop in the educational standards across the
school.
(3) It is considered a basic right of all families with young children to
be able to walk safely to and from school. All of the sites
proposed within Bishops Tachbrook Parish do not meet this
requirement. If the ability to walk to school is not met by the
selected site(s) this will result in further road congestion around
the school. The proposals do not set out how this would be
mitigated.
(4) The Bishops Tachbrook Primary School, whose catchment is
the parish boundary, is over subscribed every year, with the
result that children already on catchment have to be turned
away. It is a concern that the further demand created for
insufficient school places will lead to tension between the settled
community and the Gypsy and Traveller community.
6. Further initial evidence on site suitability will be submitted to Warwick
District Council as supporting information following receipt from Bishop's
Tachbrook's planning consultant in late August 2013.
Appendix
Link UK Initial Assessment 29th July 2013
INTERIM REPORT BY
LINK SUPPORT SERVICES (UK) LTD
ON BEHALF OF
BISHOP'S TACHBROOK PARISH COUNCIL RELATING TO THE
INCLUSION OF SITES WITHIN THE PARISH BOUNDARIES AT REVISED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSULTATION STAGE OF THE WARWICK
DISTRICT COUNCIL GYPSY AND TRAVELLER LOCAL PLAN.
SITES CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT INCLUDE:
GT 03 Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane - 15 potential pitches
GT 05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm Banbury Rd - 15 potential pitches
GT 06 Land at Park Farm Spinney Farm - 15 potential pitches
GT 09 Land to the North East of the M40 AND South of Oakley Wood Rd
- 15 potential pitches
GT 10 Land adjacent to Tollgate House and the Guide Dogs National
Breeding Centre - 8 potential pitches
GT15 Land to East of Europa Way - 4 potential pitches
AUTHOR: DAVID McGRATH BA (HONS)
MANAGING DIRECTOR
LINK SUPPORT SERVICES (UK) LTD
29TH July 2013
Our Ref: DM1292
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Link Support Services (UK) Ltd (Link) has been instructed by Bishop's
Tachbrook Parish Council to carry out an interim assessment of the
Link Support Services (UK)
Ltd
Innellan House
Eaves Green Lane
Meriden
Warwickshire
CV7 7JL
01676 522775
07802 640159
Linkukltd@aol.com
appropriateness of six potential Gypsy/ Traveller sites within the Parish
Boundaries
1.2 Link is a VAT registered company, formed in 1994 and is led by the Managing
Director Mr David McGrath. Link provides a range of services to Local
Authorities and community groups in the UK. Services include: training for
elected members and senior officers (Planning, scrutiny and community
engagement) and specialist services relating to the evaluation of proposed
developments - often but not exclusively - related to the development of
traveller sites and strategies thereto. Our associate network includes a range
of legal and planning and other experts who have represented travellers,
organisations and community groups in their search for lawful, plan led
accommodations solutions whilst protecting the environment from
inappropriate development
1.3 The context for this report is that Warwick District (WDC) has published a
report in November 2012 which shows a need for 31 permanent pitches to be
provided over the life of the Local Plan (15 years), 25 within the first five years
and 6-8 further transit pitches over the Plan period. 'Areas of search' have
been selected by officers within which it is believed that there could be
potential for a Gypsy and Traveller site, outside the Green Belt, close to the
road network and within easy reach of local facilities (schools and doctors etc.).
The result of the council's research is published to allow for public consultation
and comment. Warwick District Council is now consulting widely on their
revised development strategy which includes potential site options for new
Gypsy and Traveller sites.
1.4 With regards to travelling show people, the recent GTAA has shown that
provision already exists in the district (meeting current and future needs) so no
new pitches are required within the life of the Local Plan
1.5 The full list of sites was produced by a 'call for sites' exercise. Six potential
permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites have been identified within the Parish
Council boundaries which are the subject of this report
1.6 This Report is produced on an interim basis to comply with the consultation
timescales and will constitute the substantive interim response by the Parish
Council. It has been produced through detailed discussions with Parish
Council members, a Registered Town and Country Planner (who specialises
in Gypsy and Traveller Planning matters) and is also based on available
research data. The final report of the Parish Council relating to this stage of
consultation will however be produced following a visits to all sites by our
Planning Consultant (on his return from annual leave) and we therefore
reserve the right to amend comments contained within the report in light of the
site visits and further scrutiny of the issues herein
1.7 A particularly relevant document that we will refer to in this report is the
Warwick District Council Local Plan Final Interim Sustainability Assessment
(SA) Report (June 2013) hereinafter referred to as WDCLPSA. This was
produced by Enfusion - environmental planning, management and
sustainability consultants acting for WDC
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Following our interim assessment we would recommend that the Parish
objects to all of the proposed traveller site options listed above
2.2 We have looked at each site individually and we are able to conclude that at
each proposed location there are significant and problematic site specific
issues which casts major doubt as to the viability of each site (e.g. flood risk,
poor access to transport and or services, noise et al). Without further
information from WDC as to levels of new or proposed infrastructure
investment and/ or quantification of site related risks along with mitigation
measures, the sites cannot currently be considered as viable. We also
recommend that key partners (e.g. English Heritage) should be involved in this
stage of the consultation process as a further key test of the viability of the
proposal. It is known, for example, that some of the sites affect the setting of
Listed Buildings, Parkland and a Scheduled Monument
2.3 There is also a large amount of 'unknowns' about many of the potential sites
(e.g. their ecological and archeolological value) and also whether it is indeed
possible for any site design to overcome the harm to the openness and
character of the rural and historic environment. Without this information a
precautionary principal is urged and the sites should be opposed
2.4 There is also no information as to the potential cumulative effects of locating a
number of sites close together (i.e. GT05, 06, 09 and GT15). This could
include the impact of new sites on the environment or services and the new
challenges that would be faced by the settled and travelling communities in
attempting to access these services
2.5 It is not possible, in our view, to come to any other reasonable conclusions
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Link Support Services has (a) discussed the sites with the Chairman of the
Parish Councillor and a representative of a residents group (b) reviewed
Council documentation produced relating to these sites and (c) reviewed
documentation produced by other organisations relating to these sites. To
produce the final version of interim report we will also (d) carry out a walking
and photographic survey of the six proposed sites and (e) produce a final
report which advises the Parish Council as to the potential for any of the
potential locations identified above to become a sustainable Gypsy and
Traveller site. The final report will supersede this report
3.2 There follows a summary of the key points relating to each site and our interim
recommendations. This document is not meant to be exhaustive and Link
reserves the right to add or amend information relating to future submissions,
challenges and appeals made on behalf of the Parish Council
3.3 Our starting point for the assessment of each site relates to selection criteria
published by Warwick District Council and the Preferred Options of the Local
Plan suggested the following draft policy which contains the criteria by which
sites would be assessed for suitability:
* Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
* Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
* Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and
servicing on site
* Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
* Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
* Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment; and
* Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the
character of the area.
In addition
To fully accord with the provisions of 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites',
additional criteria need to be incorporated so that the policy:
* promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
* avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
* reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live
and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work
journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
3.4 Link Support Services would also contend that two factors in particular could be
given additional weight (positively or negatively) in the consideration of the
location of a potential traveller site. Many Councils (correctly in our view) place
greater emphasis on the need to locate sites which can access and address
serious health and educational inequalities often experienced in the travelling
communities. This translates as enhanced weighting for these factors. The
assessment and scoring system used - for example by Central Bedfordshire
Council - to identify sites has been revised to allow the presence of educational
facilities to attract additional weight. A similar case could be made for health
facilities
3.5 There follows a site by site interim evaluation of the potential sites as identified
above
4. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 03
LAND AT BARNWELL FARM HARBURY LANE - 15 POTENTIAL
PITCHES - CLOSE TO B4455 (FOSSE WAY)
4.1 Overall conclusion
A fifteen pitch traveller site development is a relatively large proposition
and any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal
conditions exist for such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal
traveller site location and it is recommended that this should be
OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the grounds shown in our overall
interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment
criteria follow:
4.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
Although the site has good access to public transport leading into the
nearest town (having a bus stop adjacent to the site). Local services
are however approximately 4.8 kilometers away. It can be argued
therefore that the site affords little opportunity for walking (there are no
well defined footpaths to local schools for example) or cycling to local
services. It is therefore possible that the distance of the site to key
facilities and employment will promote car (and other vehicle)
dependence. A 15 pitch site could generate in the region of 100 plus
trips per day (business, personal, school) with some opportunity to
offset this through use of local bus services (in the event that the
services are available)
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Harbury (4km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Harbury C of E Primary School (4km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7km)
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term
and a substantial negative against the proposal
4.3 Concerns regarding accessibility to services is also noted in the Warwick
District Plan Final Interim SA Report (June 2013) (Hereinafter referred to
as WDCLPSA) which states
'The site is just under 3 miles away from the nearest local services and
community facilities and although the site has good access to public transport,
the distance to and from these services are considered to be quite far. The
effects are considered to be permanent but minor negative in nature'.
We would disagree that this is a 'minor negative' given the need to place
particular emphasis on the need for good access to health and educational
facilities to address significant health and educational inequalities often faced
by the travelling community. Our review of site reflects this fact
4.4 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
It is known that
'Fifty per cent of the site is located on an area of high to medium flood risk
(Flood zones 2 and 3) and would pose a significant risk to caravans which are
considered to be particularly sensitive development to flooding. Development
should be directed away from areas of flood risk. There is the potential for a
significant short to medium term negative effect on SA objective 11 (climate
change adaptation -flood risk) depending on which areas of the site are used.
(WDCLPSA)
4.5 Our recommendation is that the proposal should not be advanced
further until a full Flood Risk Assessment is undertaken to (a) test the
viability of a site being located anywhere within the GT03 curtilage (b)
identify the level of mitigation required to ensure that any proposal can
be implemented within acceptable risk parameters and (c) whether
such mitigation constitutes an economically viable proposition (e.g.
mitigation vs cost)
4.6 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste
disposal, etc)
We may wish to comment on these issues after our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on these issues
4.7 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
It is known that
'There is a Scheduled Monument adjacent to the site and although
unlikely to be directly affected by the allocation, because of its
presence, there could be potential for archaeology on the site which
could be directly affected' WDCLPSA
The presence of nearby Chesterton Roman Town and the Fosseway are
major persuaders that any development should adopt a precautionary
principle regarding the potential destruction or erosion of a nationally regarded
Heritage Site and its environs. The Chesterton town site consists of 'a
defended enclosure and an extensive extramural area of roads, buildings and
boundaries. Occupation appears to run from the 1st to 4th century AD'
(Warwickshire Museum Time Trial). We recommend that support is not given
to this potential development until the precise impact on 'potential
archaeology' is understood
It is also strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed dialogue with
English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal as affecting
the setting of a scheduled monument . English Heritage (2 C) sets out their
requirements where they must be consulted in the event that
A development (is) likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument
(Schedule 5 paragraph (o) of the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010)
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
4.8 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
The WDCLPSA notes that:
'The effects on SA objectives relating to the prudent use of land, landscape
and air, water & soil quality are considered to be a minor negative. This is
because the site is located on Greenfield land outside of main settlements in
the open countryside and it contains a site of industrial pollution where
emissions are regulated. It would be recommended that existing hedgerows
are maintained and that additional screening/ landscaping is inserted where
appropriate to help blend the allocation into the landscape.
4.9 It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
We recommend that the Parish Council object to this facet of the development
on a precautionary basis until such time as detailed evidence is available as
to the levels of pollutants/ emissions and the cost and viability of any
associated mitigation proposals
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. Any developer - even at
the earliest stages of consideration would need to suggest how this potential
harm could be mitigated and such proposals are not available
4.10 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (flood risk, pollutants,
access to services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact on
heritage assets
4.11 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure
4.12 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
4.13 Overall interim conclusions
The unknown levels of potential mitigation measures (and the viability of these
measures) regarding
I. Flooding
II. Archaeology and
III. Potential pollutants
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
IV. Health and
V. Educational provision and
VI. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT03 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items I to lll Notwithstanding this items 1V - V1 weigh strongly against this
proposed site
5. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 05
LAND AT TACHBROOK HILL FARM BANBURY ROAD - 15 POTENTIAL
PITCHES
5.1 Overall conclusion
A fifteen pitch traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and
any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal traveller site location and it
is recommended that this should be OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the
grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
5.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
The WDCLPSA states that:
'The site is just under 3 miles away from local services and facilities and with
the lack of access to public transport and safe pedestrian walkways, the
negative effects are considered to be permanent in nature and therefore a
major negative'.
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence. A 15 pitch site
could generate in the region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal,
school) with no opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that:
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (1.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (1.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is also only a single form entry and it is likely that it would
not be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We agree that this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
5.3 The WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
5.4 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
5.5 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal,
etc.)
We may wish to comment on these issues following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
5.6 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
The WDCLPSA states that:
'Although there are no Conservation areas or Scheduled Monuments on or
adjacent to the site, there is a listed building within the site. The allocation has
the potential to affect the setting of the Listed Building. In addition, the
potential for archaeology is unknown'
Our previous comment regarding the presence of nearby Chesterton Roman
Town and the Fosse Way apply and we remain committed to the need for the
WDC to carry out more detailed work to identify the potential for archaeology
and the impact thereon. We recommend that support is not given to this
potential development until the precise impact on 'potential archaeology' is
understood
With regards to the development having the 'potential to affect the setting of a
Listed Building'. It is also strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed
dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal
as affecting the setting of a listed building. English Heritage (2 A) set out their
requirements where they must be consulted in the event that a:
Development which in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority affects the
setting of a grade 1 or 11* Listed Building
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
5.7 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
The ecological status of the site could change dramatically if detailed
evidence was available regarding protected species or even the overall
ecological value of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish
Council applies a precautionary principal and objects to this element of the
proposal until such time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
5.8 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'Part of the site is adjacent to the M40 (noise effects on sensitive residential
development)......and.... In addition, it is recommended that a
noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public. An
Inspector making a decision to reject a traveller site remarked:
'This approach is fundamentally flawed (i.e. that a proposal could not be
rejected on noise grounds) and flies in the face of the guidance given in TAN
11 Noise24. This requires the Noise Exposure Category (NEC) of the site to be
assessed. Two of the NECs carry an assumption against permitting
residential development. I see no justification for the view that residential
caravans should not be treated as noise sensitive development in the same
way as permanent dwellings or that their occupants should be allowed to be
exposed to higher levels of noise than considered acceptable for other sectors
of the community. Caravans are a form of housing, as often stressed, but
more vulnerable since usual noise mitigation measures cannot be built in to
them. Appeal Decision (APP/A6835/A/12/2172161),
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
5.9 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
5.10 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
5.11 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
5.12 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and the viability of these
measures) regarding
VII. Transport
VIII. Archaeology and Ecology
IX. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
X. Health and
XI. Educational provision and
XII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items Vll to lX. Notwithstanding this items X - Xll substantially undermine this
proposal
6. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 06
LAND AT PARK FARM, SPINNEY FARM - 15 POTENTIAL PITCHES
6.1 Overall conclusion
As with the previous sites considered, it is noted that (a) a fifteen pitch
traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and (b) this site
forms one of a cluster of proposed sites in close proximity. As such, any
potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development both as a sustainable individual site and with regards to
wider sustainability issues regarding other potential nearby sites. In short this
site fails - we contend both tests given a number of factors (and a variety of
unknowns) which have yet to be addressed even at an early consultation
stage. It is therefore recommended that this site should be OPPOSED by the
Parish Council on the grounds shown in our overall interim concluding
comments for this section (below)
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
6.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'With regard to the SA objectives relating to sustainable transport; the need to
travel and access to local services & community facilities, the effects are
considered to be major negative at this stage. This is due to the location of the
site being nearly 3 miles away from the nearest local services and community
facilities (school and medical) and that there is currently no access to public
transport or safe pedestrian walkways. In addition, the A452 adjacent the site
to the east, experiences high volumes of traffic'
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 15 pitch site could generate in the
region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no
opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop Tachbrook (2.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (4.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We agree that this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers. This
is therefore a point of objection by the Parish Council
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
6.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
6.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal,
etc)
We may wish to comment on these facets following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
6.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'Although there are no listed buildings, Conservation areas or Scheduled
Monuments on or adjacent to the site, there is a Registered Historic Park and
Garden adjacent to the site. The allocation has the potential to affect the
landscapes' special character'
With regards to the development having the 'potential to affect the
landscape's special character', It is also strongly recommended that WDC
seek a detailed dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even
advertising the proposal as affecting the setting of a historic landscape.
English Heritage (2 D) set out their requirements where they must be
consulted in the event that a:
'Development (is) likely to affect any garden or park of special historic interest
which is registered in accordance with section 8C of the Historic Buildings and
Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (register of gardens) and which is classified as
Grade I or Grade II* (Schedule 5 paragraph (p) of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010)
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
6.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
As with the previous site, the ecological status of the site could change
dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding protected species or
even the overall ecological value of the site. It is therefore recommended that
the Parish Council applies a precautionary principal and objects to this
element of the proposal until such time as a detailed ecological assessment is
carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
6.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass (A452)and the M40 (noise effects
on sensitive residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended
that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
This survey should be published and risks/ mitigation measures made clear
as a further test of the viability of the site
Will the proposed site:
6.8 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
6.9 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
6.10 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
6.11 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required regarding
XIII. Transport
XIV. Archaeology and Ecology
XV. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XVI. Health and
XVII. Educational provision and
XVIII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items Xlll to XV. A detailed assessment is also required as to the potential
cumulative effect of this site on services, infrastructure etc as described above.
Notwithstanding this items XVl - XVlll substantially undermine this proposal
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
7. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 09
LAND TO THE NORTH EAST OF THE M40 AND SOUTH OF OAKLEY
WOOD ROAD - 15 POTENTIAL PITCHES
7.1 Overall conclusion
As with sites GT05 and GT06 considered, it is noted that (a) a fifteen pitch
traveller site development is a relatively large proposition and (b) this site
forms one of a cluster of proposed sites in close proximity. As such, any
potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development both as a sustainable individual site and with regards to
wider sustainability issues regarding other potential nearby sites. In short this
site fails - we contend - both tests given a number of factors (and a variety of
unknowns) which have yet to addressed even at an early consultation stage.
It is therefore recommended that this site should be opposed by the Parish
Council on the grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for
this section (below)
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
7.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is the potential for significant negative effects on sustainable transport
and access to local services and facilities as the site is nearly 2.5 miles away
from the nearest local service or community facility (schools and medical) and
that there is currently no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways. There is also the potential for a negative effect on SA3 (reduce the
need to travel). In addition, at this stage, little detail is known about existing
traffic and transport issues and how the allocation will affect them '
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 15 pitch site could generate in the
region of 100 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no
opportunity to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (2.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (5.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
7.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
7.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
We may wish to comment on these facets following our site visit although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issues
7.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is a few listed buildings within the site. The allocation has the potential
to affect the setting of the Listed Buildings'
With regards to how the development has the 'potential to affect the setting of
the listed buildings', It is strongly recommended that WDC seek a detailed
dialogue with English Heritage on this matter - even advertising the proposal
as affecting the setting of a historic landscape. Listed buildings such as
Grays Mallorys House are important - historically, architecturally and in terms
of the local landscape - and English Heritage (2 A) set out their requirements
where they must be consulted in the event that a:
'Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the
setting of a grade I or II* listed building'
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
7.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'In addition, the potential for archaeology is unknown'
and
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
The ecological or archaeological status of the site could change dramatically if
detailed evidence was available regarding potential archaeology, protected
species or even the overall ecological value of the site. It is therefore
recommended that the Parish Council applies a precautionary principal and
objects to this element of the proposal until such time as a detailed ecological
assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. There is the potential for
negative visual impact on the countryside surrounding one of the main routes
into Historic Warwick. Any developer - even at the earliest stages of
consideration would need to suggest how this potential harm could be
mitigated and such proposals are not available
7.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass (A452)and the M40 (noise effects
on sensitive residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended
that a noise assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and
suggest appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
It is also recommended that
'A survey of the activities on the industrial site is carried to determine levels of
pollutants and suggest appropriate mitigation.
These surveys should be carried out and the level and viability of mitigation
measures quantified before further consideration is given to these sites. This
should form one of the early grounds for objection by the Parish Council
7.8 Will the proposed site:
Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, poor access to
transport/ local services) as well as other issues such as the potential impact
on heritage assets
7.9 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the potential
cumulative effect of these proposals (in addition to site specific issues raised
in this report) until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how
individual and cumulative issues will be addressed
7.10 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
7.11 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and viability of such measures)
regarding
XIX. Transport
XX. Archaeology and Ecology
XXI. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXII. Health and
XXIII. Educational provision and
XXIV. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT05 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with mitigation
of items XlX to XXl. Notwithstanding this items XXll - XXlV substantially undermine
this proposal as does the potential cumulative effect of other nearby suggested sites
8. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 10
LAND ADJACENT TO TOLLGATE HOUSE AND THE GUIDE DOGS
NATIONAL BREEDING CENTRE - 8 POTENTIAL PITCHES
8.1 Overall conclusion
An eight pitch traveller site development is a medium sized proposition and
any potential developer should seek to ensure that optimal conditions exist for
such a development. In short this is NOT an ideal traveller site location and it
is recommended that this should be OPPOSED by the Parish Council on the
grounds shown in our overall interim concluding comments for this section
Our comments relating to the site based on WDC's own assessment criteria
follow:
8.2 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'There is the potential for significant negative effects on sustainable transport
and access to local services and facilities as the site is nearly 2.5 miles away
from the nearest local service or community facility (schools and medical) and
that there is currently no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways. There is also the potential for a negative effect on SA3 (reduce the
need to travel). In addition, at this stage, little detail is known about existing
traffic and transport issues and how the allocation will affect them '
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. An 8 pitch site could generate in the
region of 50 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no opportunity
to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (3.5km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (3.5km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (7.5km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by a new
development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
8.3 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is not known to be in an area of 'high risk of flooding' although local
checks should be made to clarify whether there are any issues of surface
water flooding and whether a Flood Risk Assessment (mitigation etc) is
required
8.4 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site and
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
Our site visit may comment on these facets although it is acknowledged that
given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to provide precise
comment on this issue
8.5 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'Potential effects on historic environment are considered to be minor negative
at this stage. Although there are no listed buildings, Conservation areas or
Scheduled Monuments on the site, there is a Scheduled Monument and a few
listed buildings adjacent to the site'
We turn to how the development has the 'potential to affect the setting of the
listed buildings' we do not regard this as a minor negative. It is strongly
recommended that WDC seek a detailed dialogue with English Heritage on
this matter - even advertising the proposal as affecting the setting of a historic
landscape. English Heritage set out their requirements where they must be
consulted in the event that a:
'Development which in the opinion of the local planning authority affects the
setting of a grade I or II* listed building'
And where
'Development (is) likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument (Schedule
5 paragraph (o) of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010'
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
(Ref. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/consult-planning-listedbuilding-
conservation-area-consent/eh-notification-checklist.pdf)
8.6 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
In addition, we have found no published data regarding the presence or
absence of archaeology. We therefore conclude that the potential for
archaeology is unknown
As with the previous sites, the ecological or archaeological status of the site
could change dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding
potential archaeology, protected species or even the overall ecological value
of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish Council applies a
precautionary principal and objects to this element of the proposal until such
time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
8.7 Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other
disturbance
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the M40 (noise effects on sensitive residential
development) and..... In addition, it is recommended that a noise assessment
is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest appropriate
mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
8.8 Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre
The potential site would also be located close to the Guide Dogs National
Breeding Centre. Where it can be supposed that a potential new
development would involve occupiers who have a culture of keeping and
breeding dogs (such as travellers) a full risk assessment would need to be
carried out to ensure the integrity of both sites (and any potential costs
thereto) - and their respective activities in relation to animals - could be
maintained. The Parish Council therefore maybe minded to object to the site
on this ground until such a risk assessment is carried out satisfactorily
Will the proposed site:
8.9 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, access to services)
as well as other issues such as the potential impact on heritage and
ecological assets
8.10 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure
8.11 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
8.12 Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required (and viability of the those
measures) regarding
XXV. Transport
XXVI. Archaeology, historic buildings and Ecology
XXVII. Noise pollution
XXVIII. Potential site integrity issues (National Guide Dogs Breeding Centre)
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXIX. Health and
XXX. Educational provision and
XXXI. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)provides
serious and significant barriers to the development of GT10 as a viable
traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site without the
necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs associated with
mitigation of items XXV to XXVlll. Notwithstanding this items XXlX - XXXl
substantially undermine this proposal
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. It is for the developer to
clearly demonstrate how this potential harm will be mitigated in any proposals
9. SITE BY SITE INTERIM ANALYSIS. SITE GT 15
LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF EUROPA WAY - 4 POTENTIAL PITCHES
9.1 Overall conclusion
A four pitch traveller site development is a relatively modest proposition (albeit
future plans may include requests for expansion to accommodate family
growth) and therefore any potential developer should seek to ensure that
optimal conditions exist for such a development and any future associated
development/ expansion.
9.2 At first review, there are always factors which weigh in favour of a
smaller traveller site proposal such as less impact on the environment and
services. At GT15 it is also the case that the site enjoys
* Reasonable access to local services and
* There are no issues relating to the effects of the proposal on listed or
other historic assets
9.3 However, for such a site - even of modest proportions - to be viable,
key factors have to be present - we will argue - to provide the basis for a
subsequent planning applications or assessment via Examination in Public.
These factors are considered below and our comments relating to the site
based on WDC's own assessment criteria follow:
9.4 Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
WDCLPSA states that:
'With regard to SA objectives relating to sustainable transport; the need to
travel; and access to local services & community facilities, the effects are
considered to be uncertain/ minor negative at this stage. This is because
although the site has good access to local services and facilities within 2
miles, it currently has no access to public transport or safe pedestrian
walkways and at this stage, little detail is known about existing traffic and
transport issues and how the allocation will affect them. Mitigation is provided
to a certain extent by national planning policy but the effectiveness of the
mitigation will depend on design and layout at the development management
level. It is recommended that there are strong public transport infrastructure
requirements for this site to ensure that the right level of improvement and
upgrade is achieved'.
It is therefore highly likely that the distance of the site to key facilities and
employment will promote car (and other vehicle) dependence in an area
already noted for 'high volumes of traffic'. A 4 pitch site could generate in the
region of 25 plus trips per day (business, personal, school) with no opportunity
to offset this through use of local bus services
We note that:
(a) The nearest Doctors surgery is in Bishop's Tachbrook (3km)
(b) The nearest primary school is Bishop's Tachbrook (3km)
(c) The nearest secondary school is Campion (4km)
Local knowledge suggests that Bishop's Tachbrook primary school is 'always
oversubscribed' and that often 'children within the catchment area are turned
down'. This school is only a single form entry and it is likely that it would not
be able to provide for additional requirements generated by even a modest
new development
All parents will be aware that residing within the priority area does not
guarantee an offer of a place at that school. These effects are long term and
a substantial negative against the proposal
We regard this is a 'major negative' given the need to place particular
emphasis on the need for health and educational facilities to address
significant health and educational inequalities often faced by travellers.
WDCLPSA states that:
'It would be recommended to insert strong transport requirements for this
particular site to ensure that the right level of improvement and upgrade is
achieved'
We recommend that the Parish Council does not support this proposal until
such time as clear, costed, proposals are shown which would mitigate this
'major negative' (Transport) AND identify how sufficient access to education
services could be guaranteed
9.5 Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is known to be in an area of risk of flooding. From our interim
research it appears to be the case that just under half of the site is within a
flood risk area
(http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/93E97855-F61C-4BF7-BF61-
3E4FBAF88771/0/ReducedLeamingtonandWarwickPropMapSeptember2010.
pdf)
WDC should therefore carry out a full Flood Risk Assessment to understand
the level, type and cost of mitigation required. The Parish Council should
object to this proposal also based on the potential for flood risk
9.6 Safe access to the road network and provision for parking,
turning and servicing on site and
Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
Our site visit may wish to comment on these facets although it is
acknowledged that given that detailed plans are not available it is difficult to
provide precise comment on this issue
9.7 Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important
features of the natural and historic environment
WDCLPSA states that:
'There are no listed buildings, Conservation Areas or Scheduled Monuments
on or adjacent to the site'
9.8 Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming
the character of the area.
An associated issue is the impact of any development on the ecology and
archaeology of the area
WDCLPSA notes that:
'There are no international, national or local nature conservation designations
on or adjacent to the site but the presence of protected species and the
ecological value of the site in not known at this stage. It would be
recommended that strong environmental policies are developed to protect and
encourage enhancement of the natural environment and include provision for
green infrastructure.
In addition, we have found no published data regarding the presence or
absence of archaeology. We therefore conclude that the potential for
archaeology is unknown
As with the previous sites, the ecological or archaeological status of the site
could change dramatically if detailed evidence was available regarding
potential archaeology, protected species or even the overall ecological value
of the site. It is therefore recommended that the Parish Council applies a
precautionary principal and objects to this element of the proposal until such
time as a detailed ecological assessment is carried out
It is our view that the site should not receive further consideration until this
consultation is complete as a further test of the viability of the potential site
9.9 With regards to 'Avoiding areas where there is the potential for
noise and other disturbance'
WDCLPSA notes that:
'The site is adjacent to the Warwick by-pass A452 (noise effects on sensitive
residential development) and..... In addition, it is recommended that a noise
assessment is carried out to identify possible noise impacts and suggest
appropriate mitigation.
WDC will be aware that noise effects can be a significant obstacle for
development and this may be reflected in any Examination in Public (see
previous note to traveller site appeal decision.
The harm from noise therefore clearly needs to be assessed and quantified
and as such the proposal should be opposed until such data is available and
the harms (and acceptability or otherwise) known
Will the proposed site:
9.10 Promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site
and the local community
There is currently no evidence to suggest that site occupants could not
peacefully co-exist with the settled community. We do, however, anticipate
widespread concern from the settled and travelling communities over a range
of issues which undermine the viability of the site (noise, access to services)
as well as other issues such as the potential impact on ecological assets and
the cumulative effects on infrastructure from other potential nearby sites
9.11 Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
This is currently unknown although given the location of the site (and the
likelihood of car dependency) this will contribute further to pressure on the
road infrastructure. This could have an enhanced negative effect if this was
combined with the potential effect of other nearby proposed Gypsy and
Traveller sites
9.12 Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some
travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting
many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.
This is unknown as no site specific proposals have been produced. The
Parish Council will wish to clarify whether it is WDC's intention to promote
'residential only' sites or whether an element of 'business use' or parking of
commercial vehicles associated with business use is envisaged (along with
the storage of plant, equipment and other materials)
Overall interim conclusions
The level of potential mitigation measures required regarding
XXXII. Flood Risk
XXXIII. Transport
XXXIV. Unknown archaeological and ecological status
XXXV. Noise pollution
Combined with the sub optimal provision of accessible and viable
XXXVI. Health and
XXXVII. Educational provision and
XXXVIII. A lack of choice of modes of transport (supporting sustainability)
provides serious and significant barriers to the development of GT15 as a
viable traveller site. No further consideration should be given to this site
without the necessary evidential data to quantify the risks and costs
associated with mitigation of items XXX11 to XXX1V. Notwithstanding this
items XXXV - XXXVI1 substantially undermine this proposal
It is noted that the current consultation proposal include four Gypsy and
Traveller sites in close proximity i.e. GT05, GT06, GT09 and GT15 - with a
total of 49 pitches being proposed. We therefore have additional concerns
about the cumulative effects on sustainable transport; the need to travel; local
services and community facilities and other factors described hereto. We
therefore recommend that The Parish Council should object to the cumulative
effect of these proposals in addition to site specific issues raised in this report
until such time as information is provided by WDC as to how individual and
cumulative issues will be addressed
We would also recommend that The Parish Council objects to this site option
given that there is the potential for the development to undermine the
character and openness of the rural environment. It is for the developer to
clearly demonstrate how this potential harm will be mitigated in any proposals

An intention to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment is to be welcomed (para 7.3) as this echo's the requirements of the NPPF.

The following brief observations relate to those sites with the potential to be inconsistent with this objective. Further more careful assessment should be considered to understand how the proposed G&T sites relate to the significance of the heritage assets affected and whether the G&T developments would harm that significance. As I have been unable to consider whether any undesignated assets of importance or wider historic landscape matters are affected (Warwickshire Historic Landscape Characterisation, WCC) you should consider such matters when/if assessing the sites further.

GT03 Roman settlement close by at Windmill Hill. Issue of setting and potential for related archaeology.
GT05 Circa 17C barn. Impact on significance?
GT06 Adjacent to Grade 1 Castel Park (please refer to my comments to you re RDS July 2013).
GT07 Adjacent to Baginton Castle, associated settlement remains, ponds and mill sites.
GT09 Close to Warwick Castle Park; and includes West Lodge and Greys Mallory listed buildings
GT10 Potential for undiscovered archaeology relating to Oakley Wood Camp.
GT12/16 Setting of Barford Conservation Area. Potential for undiscovered archaeology.
GT15 Consider historic association with Castle Park.

I look forward to a refined version in due course. Please do contact me to discuss further if that would help.

Dear Sir/Madam


Re: LETTER OF OBJECTION
Sites for Gypsies and Travellers (Local Plan Document June 2013)

I write to object to the plan to establish Gypsy and Traveller sites as outlined in the above document. I have detailed the reasons for my objection below.

Warwick District Council has not provided any evidence that these sites are actually needed or any evidence as to why so many sites are needed. In fact the documentation supplied on your own website 'Evidence of Local Needs and Historic Demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick District' and 'Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment: Warwick Final report' suggests that 2-3 TEMPORARY sites of 15 pitches for the WHOLE of Warwickshire would be sufficient to cater for the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

I refer to sections 5.2 and 5.3 of 'Evidence of Local Needs and Historic Demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in Warwick District:'

Section 5.2 states the "figures demonstrate that, even when organised events are included, the average number of days spent in the district is low. The average number of days per visit overall is 6.2 and the average number of vans per encampment at any time is 8.7.

Section 5.3 states "All gypsies and travellers recorded were transitory and either moving from one part of the country to another, visiting family locally or attending an organised event, after which they left the district."

Section 5.5 includes a table of responses provided by 8 Gypsies and Travellers in which they were asked whether they would prefer a permanent or temporary site. Only 2 of the 8 responses indicated that they would like a permanent site.

So why are you proposing mainly permanent sites of at least 15 pitches when the above evidence quite clearly shows that permanent sites of this size are not needed.

I refer again to section 5.5 which states "The district council's own records comprise questionnaires completed or partially completed by gypsy and traveller groups when they arrived in the district. Since February 2008, eight such questionnaires, all from Irish travellers, have been collected. It is very difficult to get them completed since there is reluctance on the part of the travelling community to give information and distrust of council representatives. Information is also difficult to obtain for each of the families or individuals travelling together and sometimes one person will answer on behalf of the entire group. The questions posed assess the welfare needs of the individual, but some questions are pertinent to their more general needs. One of the questions asked relates to the desirability of a permanent site and where this would best be located for this specific group of travellers."

Q1. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan based on evidence that is not statistically robust as it is based on responses provided by only eight people. This plan should be dismissed on these grounds alone.

Q2. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan to benefit a group of people who clearly are not interested as they are unwilling to co-operate enough to even complete a questionnaire?

In section 5.6 it states "Advice obtained from the Gypsy and Traveller Officer at Warwickshire County Council based on the above information, indicates that a transient site would need to be made available, of an adequate size for ten vans to ensure that there would be sufficient space to accommodate a figure higher than the average number of vans recorded historically in the district at any one time."

This document concludes "From the data collected, it can be concluded that demand is low and transitory in nature. Even given the highest average number of days spent in the district this is no higher than 12 days. The average number of vans per visit is less than 9. To ensure that a site is provided of sufficient size to accommodate more than this average and accommodate the majority of encampments, it is concluded that there is a need for a transitory site to accommodate 15 vans. It is not considered necessary to accommodate the highest number of vans that has been recorded as these are extreme events and not a regular occurrence."

Q3. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources producing a plan that proposes mainly permanent sites when the advice of your own Gypsy and Traveller Officer is that only ONE TRANSIENT site is required.

I refer to section 3.5 of the document entitled 'Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment: Warwick Final report.' This includes a table that presents an estimation of the size of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople population and 'states using the best information available we estimate that there are at least 124 individuals or thirty-three households in the study area' i.e. Warwick District.

This document is based on a study sample of only 43 families. Again this is not statistically robust.

Q4. Why has WDC spent considerable time, money and resources formulating a plan that proposes 31 sites when the current population of Gypsies and Travellers is so small?

Statistics from the 2006 Irish census in the Republic or Ireland also does not support the need for so many sites. In the census only 22,369 people identified themselves as Irish Travellers. Of these, only 1,460 lived in urban areas, a clear indication that Irish Travellers do not actually want to live in rural locations. Yet despite this, the majority of proposed sites are in rural locations.

From the location of the proposed sites, it is also clear that Warwickshire District Council has not consulted with Stratford-Upon-Avon District Council. You are proposing six sites within the small parish of Bishops Tachbrook which does not take into account the fact that due to the amount of identified green belt land within the Stratford-Upon-Avon district; the majority of their 52 proposed sites will have to be located to the north west of their district which borders very close to the parish of Bishops Tachbrook.

This plan also does not take into account Warwickshire District Council's own Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes 12,000 new homes, the majority of which are located South of Warwick and Whitnash. The impact of this will be a significant increase in traffic and noise pollution in the very locations where you are proposing to put the Gypsy and Traveller sites.

With reference to all the above information I have provided I request that Warwick District Council provide evidence to justify both the location and number of proposed sites.

Site GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm, Harbury Lane
Site GT04 - Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

Road Safety/Road Access - The area of the Fosse Way close to these two sites has already been identified as a dangerous road. Road users are warned of this by signs that inform them of how many people have been killed on the road and speed cameras have been installed in an attempt to slow traffic down. Road users will often travel at high speed and take risks due to the relative straightness of the road. An increase in slow moving traffic such as caravans on this road will only result in more accidents. The intersection of Harbury Lane and the Fosse way is particularly bad and traffic will back up here at peak times of the day.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Visual Aesthetics - These two sites will be clearly visible from the Chesterton Windmill. This site is visited daily by members of the local community and visitors to the area who enjoy this peaceful site with wonderful views of open fields. This wonderful view changes with the seasons meaning the site is visited all year round.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area."

The view from Chesterton Windmill also looks out over the remains of a Roman settlement.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 3.5 of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 where a specific principle under the key element of Environment is to protect high quality landscapes, heritage assets and other areas of significance.

Site GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road

Road Safety/Road Access - The Banbury Road is a very busy road and at peak times, traffic will back up and it can be very difficult to make a right hand turn onto this road from either the Oakley Wood Road or Mallory Road. Adding slow moving traffic such as caravans onto this road will increase the risk of incidents and add to the current traffic problems.

Today whilst travelling along the A46, I found myself in a long queue of traffic, travelling at less than 10mp for approximately 15 minutes. The reason for the build-up of traffic was three traditional style Gypsy caravans and horses on the road.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013.

There is also no pedestrian access to this site.
This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - The south of Bishops Tachbrook village suffers from noise pollution from the M40. This site would lie even closer to the M40 so would suffer from even worse noise pollution.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes within the same parish of Bishops Tachbrook.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - Mallory Road is the main road into the older original section of Bishops Tachbrook village.

Banbury Road is the main road used by visitors approaching from junction 14 or 15 into Warwick which is a historical town attracting visitors from all over the world.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document, that states the following is required "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area."

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is situated very close to the Banbury Road, Warwick bypass and junction 14 of the M40. All of these roads are extremely busy especially at peak times of the day when drivers experience long tailbacks. There is also no pedestrian access to this site.

The volume of traffic south of Warwick and Whitnash where this site is located will also increase greatly as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013

The site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - This site would suffer from noise pollution due to its close proximity to junction 14 of the M40.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area;"

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites. "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT09 Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is surrounded by the M40 and Warwick Bypass (A452), all of which are very busy roads and there is no pedestrian access to the site.

The volume of traffic where this site is located will also increase greatly as a result of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes 12,000 new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash, many of which we are told are required for people who will work in Coventry and therefore travel on these roads on a daily basis.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - This site would suffer from noise pollution due to its close proximity to junction 14 of the M40.

Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.;"

Schools - Bishops Tachbrook nursery and primary school run at full capacity and already have a waiting list. With six Gypsy and Traveller sites proposed for this small area, it would be impossible for the school to take on the significant number of extra students that would come from these sites.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.4 of the document that states the following is required to fully comply with provisions for sites. "avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services;"

Site GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Center

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is bordered by both the M40 and the Banbury Road. There is also no pedestrian access to the site.

The volume of traffic in the area where this site is located will also increase greatly due to thousands of new homes proposed to be built south of Warwick and Whitnash as outlined in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013.

This site proposed does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states that the following is required. "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Noise Pollution - The site would suffer noise pollution from the M40. Noise pollution as a whole will also increase greatly in this area due to the impact of the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2012 that proposes thousands of new homes south of Warwick and Whitnash resulting in a substantial increase in the volume of traffic in the area.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;"

Visual Impact - The Banbury Road is the access road to the historic town of Warwick.

This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required. "Sites, which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.;"

Business Impact - This site holds the national breeding centre for guide dogs. There is a risk of their breeding dogs being introduced to and infected by diseases carried by pets belonging to the Gypsy and Travelling communities.

Site GT15 Land to east of Europa Way

Road Safety/Road Access - This site is located near to Europa Way. This is a very busy road and at peak times experiences long tail backs in both directions. This road is so busy that there is a proposal to turn this into a dual carriageway road. There is also no pedestrian access to this site.

The volume of traffic where this site is located will also increase greatly as identified in the Local Plan - Revised Development Strategy Document June 2013 which proposes thousands of new homes in the area south of Warwick and Whitnash bringing with it a huge increase in the volume of traffic in the area.


This site does not meet the criteria laid out in Section 7.3 of the document that states the following is required, "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;"

Environment - This site is located close to the Tachbrook and as the sites are also designated as places of work, there is the risk of pollution from this site into the Tachbrook.

I request that you register my objection to the above sites and review your current Local Plan.

Please acknowledge receipt of my letter by return post and keep me informed of this matter.

GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road
GT06 - Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm
GT09 - Land to the north east of M40 and south of Oakley Wood Road
GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre
GT15 - Land to east of Europa Way

Contained within the Warwick District Council Local Plan Gypsy and Traveller Site Options because they do not meet the site requirements set out in Section 7 of the Warwick District Council Consultation Document and therefore do not address the Issues affecting the Gypsy and Traveller community set out in section 4.

There are particular concerns relating to the remoteness of the sites from amenities and also the potential for noise and disturbance with sites being so close major roads and existing communities. These sites would place unreasonable pressure on local infrastructure and services particularly the school in Bishop's Tachbrook which is only single form entry and therefore would be unable to provide the additional education support required by this community as identified in the Section 4.

The Issues are:
*The proposed locations are not in areas 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 Entreprises alike. There is also likely to be a threat to Local Businesses within the Bishop's Tachbrook Area outside of the Tourist Industry.

*A further potential threat to Historical Bishop's Tachbrook which is listed in the Doomsday Book along with possible damage to listed buildings.

*With that chance that these sites will be used as places of work by the Gypsy or Traveller community, there is a threat of pollution to the Tachbrook Brook with Site GT15 being located in close proximity.

*The proposed Sites are on good quality arable land which is needed to feed the population.

*Overall there will be an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment.

*Bishop's Tachbrook C of E Primary School & Nursery is currently oversubscribed. This places even more undue pressure on a small Village School and the additional support that will be required by Gypsy and Traveller children, children who are noted within section 4 of the WDC Consultation Document as being educationally disadvantaged, will be difficult for the school to provide without adversely impacting all pupils. It is understood that in these circumstances there is no additional funding provided by the County Council other than that received per capita of children receiving free school meals.

*Access from the sites are directly on to roads within 50 mph zones. There are no pedestrian footpaths or public transport links. Therefore, there is no safe access to the road network which is a specified site requirement within the WDC Consultation Document. This is dangerous for large caravans to be turning in and out of the sites along with putting other road user's safety at risk.

*Due to the remote locations and having no pedestrian footpaths secondary school children will have to wait for school buses on main roads or be transported to safe bus stops by car or all the way to school. This is not a sustainable solution.

*One of these sites is prone to flooding.

*The provision of utilities on the sites is questionable. With running water, toilet facilities, sewage being bare necessities.

*Availability of necessary employment for the Gypsy & Traveller Community is a concern.

*There is a concern that although the number of Pitches upon the Sites is to be regulated, the actual numbers of people on the Pitches cannot be regulated or controlled. There is a further concern that the Sites are likely to be operated by the Gypsy Community and not Warwick District Council.

Part B - Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

I Errol A. Mews FRICS, Consultant Surveyor with Tayler & Fletcher represent Mr. and Mrs. Brian and Angela Smith owner and occupier of Red House Farm, Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV33 9QQ and I set out below their objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT09, GT05 and GT10.

Mr. and Mrs. Brian and Angela Smith owner and occupier of Red House Farm occupies the majority of the land within GT09 and the farm extends to approximately 300 acres and is used extensively for suckler cow herd with calves, large breeding ewe flock and lambs with cattle being reared and fattened for market together with lambs for market.

Their objections are on the following grounds:

Farming Enterprise and Agriculture
This part of Warwickshire is predominantly livestock breeding and fattening animals with suckler cow herds and calves, breeding ewes and lambs, free range turkey breeding and pheasant rearing. GT10 has a National Guide Dog Breeding Centre. Gypsy and Traveller Sites often have many many dogs of the lurcher/greyhound type and very often those type of dogs worry sheep and cattle and free range poultry. They are also liable to provide disease in animals.

Highways and Safety Issues
GT10 has a long frontage to the M40 motorway and in this particular section there have been a number of accidents where cars and lorries have gone off the motorway and crashed through the motorway fence. GT10 has a long frontage to the B4100 main road which is extremely busy with cars going to and from Gaydon Motor Centre where Jaguar, Landrover and Aston Martin are based. GT10, GT09 and GT05 are adjacent to two half motorway junctions numbers 13 and 14, These junctions are extremely busy with all types of vehicles entering and leaving the M40 motorway with access to Leamington Spa, Warwick and elsewhere. The roads leading on to the B4100 are also potentially dangerous on the road safety angle. Gypsy Traveller Sites always have large towing caravans and anywhere along the B4100 and the adjoining roads provide a particularly dangerous hazard with slow moving vehicles entering or exiting a main road.

Services and Utilities
There is no main gas and no main drainage in the area

Rural Landscape
The area around GT10.GT09 and GT05 is basically rural and agricultural and any proposed site will be a major invasion to the openess of the countryside.and therefore will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area.

Ecology and Wildlife Habitat
In close proximity to GT10 is Oakley Wood which is a 110 acre site owned and/or managed by Warwick District Council. It was purchased for amenity and lifestyle living. If a Gypsy and Traveller Site was provide in the area, then the very purpose and use of Oakley Wood could be jeopardised if lurcher dogs were loose and firewood was collected for traditional Gypsy and Traveller fires on the pitches. Oakley Wood therefore would be a fire hazard.


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT05 - Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm

As my client has lived in the area for over 30 years he is aware of Hill Farm which forms the majority of the land within GT05 and part GT10. My client wishes to support the objection of Brian and Angela Lewis, owner/occupiers of Hill Farm and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site Options on GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Some of the land is owned and farmed by Brian and Angela Lewis. Some of the land is owned and occupied by Dan and Elizabeth Sheehan and some is owned and occupied by Charles and Helen hammond. My clients wish to support the objection of Brian and Angela Lewis, Dan and Elizabeth Sheehan and Charles and Helen Hammond the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

Dan Sheehan is a farmer who farms in the East Midlands but Park Barn Farm is the farmstead, farm office and where the business is conducted from. My client has experienced Gypsy and Traveller Sites close to his farms in the East Midlands. The presence of such a site results in an increase in the theft of gates, metalware and other farm fixtures and fittings.

Further objection is on the following grounds:

Farming Enterprise and Agriculture
This part of Warwickshire is predominantly livestock breeding and fattening animals, suckler cow herds and calves, breeding ewes and lambs, free range turkey breeding and pheasant rearing. GT10 has a National Guide Dog Breeding Centre. Gypsy and Traveller Sites often have many many dogs of the lurcher/greyhound type and very often those type of dogs worry sheep and cattle and free range poultry. They are also liable to provide disease.

Highways and Safety Issues
GT05 and GT10 have a long frontage to the M40 motorway and in this particular section there have been a number of accidents where cars and lorries have gone off the motorway and crashed through the motorway fence. GT05 and GT10 also have a long frontage to the B4100 main road which is extremely busy with cars going to and from Gaydon Motor Centre where Jaguar/Landrover and Aston Martin are based. GT05 and the other neighbouring sites are adjacent to two half motorway junctions numbers 13 and 14. These junctions are extremely busy with all types of vehicles entering and leaving the M40 motorway with access to Leamington Spa, Warwick and elsewhere. The roads leading on to the B4100 are also potentially dangerous on the road safety angle. Gypsy Traveller Sites always have large towing caravans and anywhere along the B4100 and the adjoining roads provide a particularly dangerous hazard with slow moving vehicles entering or exiting a main road.

Services and Utilities
There is no main gas and no main drainage in the area

Rural Landscape
The area around GT05 is basically rural and agricultural and any proposed site will be a major invasion to the openess of the countryside.and therefore will be an irreversible urbanisation of the entire area.

Ecology and Wildlife Habitat
In close proximity to GT05 is Oakley Wood which is a 110 acre site owned and managed by Warwick District Council. It was purchased for amenity and lifestyle living. If a Gypsy and Traveller Site was provide in the area, then the very purpose and use of Oakley Wood could be jeopardised if lurcher dogs were loose and firewood was collected for traditional Gypsy and Traveller fires on the pitches. Oakley Wood therefore would be a fire hazard.


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site options on GT09 - Land to the North East of M40

As my clients have lived in the area for over 30 years they are aware of Red House Farm which forms the majority of the land within GT09. My client wishes to support the objection of Brian and Angela Smith, owner occupiers of Red House Farm and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat


Objections to any Gypsy and Traveller Site Options on GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

Some of the land is owned and farmed by Charles and Helen Hammond. My clients wish to support the objection of Charles and Helen Hammond and the same remarks regarding Farming Enterprise and Agriculture, Highways and Safety Issues, Services and Utilities, Rural Landscape and Ecology and Wildlife Habitat

Identified Gypsy & Traveller Site GT04 Land at Harbury Lane Fosse Way

I fell this site fails to meet the council's Local Plan Requirements & its preferred options because-
The doctors' surgeries in Bishops Tachbrook, Whitnash & Harbury are at capacity and would be unable to cope with an influx of new patients.
The primary schools in Bishops Tachbrook & Harbury are already oversubscribed & the Catholic Primary in Whitnash, St Joseph's Catholic Primary School has even had to turn away Catholics with siblings already at the school as it has such a high application rate.
Also the literacy and numeracy levels of many of these children will mean that should a place be found at a local school they will need additional help to catch up, and this should be provided. Is the council going to supply additional funds to help support these children's needs? Given that the parents of many of these children are unable to read & write themselves they are not in a position to help children with their own learning and this identifies yet another pressure point. As an adult not being able to read & write seriously narrows down the type of work you would be able to apply for, there are no employers within in the village of Bishops Tachbrook or Harbury therefore there is no immediate local economy for them to join with. Most villagers have to commute to work.
There is no Dental care in Bishops Tachbrook.
There are no pavements between the proposed site and the nearest village and this would be a great danger especially during peak travel hours and school run times.
There are no bus stops and no safe place for a bus stop to be put in.
This would force more traffic through the village of Bishops Tachbrook & Whitnash.
Additional traffic at major road junctions would put too much strain on an already busy junction onto a road where cars are travelling at speed.
Most of this plot does not have any Provision of Utilities.
Given the proximity of 50mph roads next to this site what are the provisions for the safety and security of both people & animals? For instance a horse on the Banbury Road especially a loose one could end in fatalities.

It states in your Sites for Gypsies & Travellers page 9 last bullet point on section 7.4 the site should reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles ( whereby some travellers live & work from the same location hereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. Bishops Tachbrook, Whitnash & Harbury would not be able to offer any traditional forms of income for travellers or gypsies. Next to this statement is an image of a draught horse. We are not a horse based community so farrier's would not be able to make a living here. Also my understanding is that traditional forms of employment also include door to door sales and this would be in stark contrast to advice given by police not to buy from door to door sales people. I fail to see how our community can support the traditional lifestyle of travellers.
The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area which is stipulated as a Site Requirement within the WDC Consultation Document.
There is a potential visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Enterprises alike.
We would lose the much used New Windmill football ground. This is not acceptable.
Therefore a site in this location will put undue pressure on local infrastructure & services.
I have read "Sites for Gypsies & Travellers" Local Plan helping shape the district.
Why are the 15 sites are all placed south of Warwick & Leamington? The small village of Bishops Tachbrook has 6 of these within a mile of it, 2 are on its immediate doorstep. Potentially all of these sites could be approved and the very nature of our community and how the approach to our village would look would be irrevocably changed & the effect would be devastating to our way of life. This is not acceptable nor a reasonable request for the council to make.
There is no statement from the Gypsy Council of Great Britain or any other organising body on behalf of the Gypsy & Traveller community, within your brochure/document, that they wish to join our community in Warwickshire or anywhere else. Odd that. Perhaps this is because they have no desire to permanently live here? What evidence does the council have that the gypsy & traveller community wish to use these sites as a permanently settled site with a fixed maximum number of 15 Pitches? You also do not state how many people are able to live within a pitch or who is responsible for the site. Due diligence has not taken place here. I appreciate that you state the Regional Spatial Strategy & commissioned Salford University to produce a report but you have failed to put any meaningful back up data into this document. Therefore I have to question the validity of the study as you have not put it in the information you are handing out. Where is the proof that so many sites are needed? Much needed data is missing here & the council are remiss in leaving it out.
You also state that the Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment shows a need for 31 pitches, 25 within the first five years & a further 6-8 transit pitches over the Plan period. Yet the brochure you have produced is only showing 19 of these. Why are you not identifying where all these sites will potentially be? Are you planning to use these larger identified areas to put up multiple sites? Please be clear & honest!

Your brochure has not been laid out in a way that makes for easy & understandable reading. For instance sites GT05 & GT09 in reality face each other on opposite sides of the Banbury Road yet in your document the numbers on the map are shown as far away from each other as possible and are shown in map four 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 seems rather disingenuous
Also the images you are using on your front cover, page 3 & page 4 are clearly stock images of holiday camping sites. They are not permanent sites and they are certainly not Gypsy & Traveller sites. Why is the council not using real images from existing successful sites to give an honest & truthful photographic representation of how these sites will look?
I attended the public meeting at Whitnash Primary School recently regarding the Local Plan. I have never attended a public meeting before & went with the idea that WDC & our local councillors would be working for the benefit of our community. Unfortunately when I left the meeting & on reading the documents I felt very disillusioned. The lead spokesperson for the council gave a long and drawn out introduction implying that we were all prejudiced against the traveller community. I found it offensive, ill advised and very condescending. Where I appreciate all the hard work & effort that council employees put in and I appreciate that the directives regarding The Gypsy & Traveller sites are coming from Westminster 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 heckling 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.