GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

Dear Sir or Madam,

Having attended last weeks meeting at Aylesford School I am writing in connection with the above and in particular with the proposed site on Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (GT11).

The property I own is No. 33 Robins Grove at the top of the "hammer head" and the rear of my property backs directly onto the Hampton Road and the view from my upstairs master bedroom window overlooks directly into the site being proposed. In wintertime when the leaves have fallen it is a clear view - I should say that for much of the winter a good proportion of the land is flooded with large areas of water laying on the surface for long periods. I presume that you are aware of this?

Nevertheless the amount of personal capital that I invested in purchasing my home in 2000 and indeed the amount of local taxes I have paid promptly in the subsequent period did and does not reflect the sight and existence of a Gypsy site in such close proximity. I therefore submit my personal objections on the grounds of the land itself not being suitable and furthermore to the severe impact that your proposals have to the views from my property.

My second objection is based around Security. You will be aware that immediately adjacent to my next door neighbour's property there is a pedestrian walkway through from the Grove to Hampton Road.

You will also be aware that on occasions in the past Gypsies have stayed for temporary periods of time on the car park next to the new Racecourse stables block on the North side of the Hampton Road.

One of the attractions to me purchasing No. 33 back in 2000 was it's secluded location. There is no passing motorised traffic as such and the few pedestrians using the walkway mentioned above do not come close to my property.

The rear of my property is secured by a 6 foot solid wood fence and shrubbery on all sides and access (other than through the house itself) is via a solid wooden side gate. I use the latter passageway as my personal access choosing to enter the house through the rear kitchen door.

On the occasion that Gypsies were last camped "over the road" at the stables car park I came down stairs during a weekday morning and found that a middle aged Gypsy woman had opened the back gate and let herself onto my property . She was peering though my (half glazed) kitchen door turning the handle trying to enter my house. The door itself was locked. Without opening the door I asked what she wanted and she demanded money from me - I refused - she then demanded food which I again refused. After around 3 minutes of her voicing abuse and filth at me - she decided to leave.

Having experienced this trespass I object to your proposals on the grounds of the impact upon the security of my home. You could say that I should keep my back gate bolted at all times. My response would be - Why should I?

I believe that it is reasonable for me to have the right to choose by which access I enter my own home and a necessity to bolt my gate from the inside would direct all access through the front - this is not something that I wish to do.

Thank you for your kind attention to the matters raised above.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed site.

1. There is no doubt that this site would have a detrimental visual impact on the Hampton Road. For many people visiting Warwick this is their first site of this historic town, there is no guarantee that this would not deter anyone from either visiting again or wanting to live in Warwick.

2. Local amenities are already stretched. The doctors surgery at Chase Meadows is already under pressure with appointments difficulty to make. Local Schools are at capacity with numbers increasing due to further planned development on Chase Meadows.

3. The proposed site was designated a floor plane and whilst work has been done to eliminate any risk, further development in this area would once again increase the risk.

4. There is already a traffic problem on Hampton Road. Hampton Road is increasingly busy and not an easy road to negotiate due to parked cars and Race Meetings. The speed on this road is an issue, despite speed restrictions. Another access road coming onto the Hampton Road near the junction with Purser Drive would cause problems getting off the estate, as would an increase in thru traffic along Purser Drive. Despite speed bumps along Purser Drive there is a current problem with speeding traffic and with vans parked along this road, causing a visual obstruction for both traffic and anyone crossing the road, especially school children. Any further increase would cause huge difficulties for the inhabitants of Purser Drive.

5. The residents of Chase Meadows have experienced problems with dogs belonging to the travelling community. During the recent illegal encampment on Hampton Road, loose dogs were frightening and I could no longer walk into Warwick, nor could many of my neighbours. The dogs were intimidating as were the people living in the encampment, with no respect for the local community. Many children cycle to Aylesford School along this road and this would not be safe, traffic being one issue and the loose dogs another.

6. A Gypsy/Traveller site would not wish to be integrated into the local population and nor would it be integrated into the local landscape. Firstly the inhabitants of the site would not wish to coexist by way of integration and secondly a delightful rural landscape would be permanently lost. The site would be of no benefit to the local environment, it would deter people from visiting the town, deter people from wanting to live on Chase Meadows, would not enhance the economy of the town and would not add anything to the local community.

Dear Sir / Madam:

I am writing to express my objections to the suggestions contained within the New Local Plan, specifically the proposals in respect of provision for Gipsy and Traveller sites within the Warwick area.

Following extensive development in the local area over the past decade particularly in the Chase Meadow area a huge burden has already been placed on the local infrastructure and amenities.

The Chase Meadow estate with the current and planned future development will place a further burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities which already struggles to cope.

There is currently already a 3-4 day lead time at the Doctors surgery without the currently planned development which would only be further exacerbated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity to this estate.

Another major concern for those resident in the surrounding area as well as for those who plan to reside there themselves should be the potential impact that the location of hard standing could have on the flood plain.

Further excavation can only increase the risk of flooding in the surrounding area including the land bordering the proposed location owned by the race course.

The racecourse provides significant income to the surrounding areas and business's through it's many events as well as providing much needed employment opportunities.

The loss of a race meeting due to flooding could have negative long term effects on the local economy and in addition the local residents.

I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are considered seriously during this review that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families.

Hi:

I am very much against the proposal for Gypsy and traveller sites in Warwickshire, in particular close to Chase Meadow, for the reasons sighted below:

1. House prices will fall / houses will become hard to sell, this is notable from looking at some national statistics where traveller sites are located, just look at the 3+ acre plot of land in Pathlow Stratford upon Avon, this plot has planning permission, however as it's located near a traveller site it's been on the marker over two years at a reduced price, elsewhere this would have commanded twice the asking price.

2. It will be detrimental to the incoming view of Warwick when coming in from Calverdon direction, this could affect local tourism.

3. The local doctors surgery in Warwick is very busy already, will it be able to cope with additional families, don't forget the Chase meadow is expanding.

4. finally, can you please confirm how much council tax the traveller site families will pay? will this be in accordance with other residence that utilise the services in Warwickshire.

see attached

As a Chase Meadow resident, I wish to object to the selection of land off Hampton Road (GT11) as a possible permanent travellers' site.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites requires them to be sited so as to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. It is very unlikely this will be achieved with one in such close proximity to the Chase Meadow estate, which has voiced strong opposition.

I am concerned that the local infrastructure such as the schools and doctors surgeries would not able to support a larger (12-pitch) site, as is required by the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

I understand that part of the site is on a flood plain. There have been long-standing holdups to developments at Chase Meadow such as the adoption of the roads and a commencement on the Community Centre, because of Severn Trent concerns over the flooding risk in the area. The introduction of extensive areas of hard standing on or near the flood plain could have adverse effects on the estate. Any further hard standing (creating run-off) within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with potential flooding.

From a Council representative's reply to a question I asked at the WDC Public Meeting at Aylesford School on 15th July 2013, I understand that once planning permissionf or a site is granted, the site owners and tenants can apply for permission for business uses; which is highly likely. The possibility that this could become a site for a range of Traveller business activities would be extremely detrimental to the quality of life on adjacent parts of the Church Meadow estate immediately the other side of Hampton Road, and would constitute very bad Planning. Major potential concerns are noise, smoke, pollution of ground water and streams.

Please can I raise my objection to the above Gypsy and Traveler site for the following reasons

1) The local infrastructure (doctors/schools/roads) could not support the addition of a Gypsy and travelers site, Warwick is already a busy town and could not cope with the addition of this site and the residents. The school are already full, with doctors surgery's already struggling to meet the demand of patients

2) This site sits within the flood plain and green belt land, to add a site here would add to the current flood issues with a hard standing site being erected to cater for the gypsy/travelers. More of a risk to local roads and properties as the water will have no where to go


3) The addition of the site would have a major impact on local shops and services. The race course brings a lot of revenue to the town and also invests a lot in Warwick. The new stable blocks that have been built for owners would be near the site where non vaccinated animals are being kept putting a risk to thoroughbred horses

I support the area of search at GT11 (Hampton Road). This is a sustainable site with good access to GPs and both primary and secondary schools. There is adequate separation from the settled community to avoid issues of noise from the site affecting the settled community, whilst the site is close enough to minimise isolation and potentially promote a better understanding between the two communities. However, the western end of the site is too close to the A46 and noise levels are high. Trailers cannot be soundproofed to the same level as houses so this part of the area will not provide reasonable accommodation for the travelling community.

Other sites offering reasonable access to existing facilities, particularly primary schools, include GT12 and GT05, particularly the northern end of GT05. In the case of GT12 the difficulty of crossing the
A429 Barford bypass should be considered, however.

I object to the site at GT20 (Junction 15, M40) because the high level of noise from the M40 will adversely impact on the amenity of residents of any site here.

Similar comments can be made for large parts of GT09

The Fosse Way sites (GT03 and GT04) appear to have nothing to recommend them in terms of access to facilities. The level of isolation of the sites is also unlikely to promote inclusion. GT06 suffers from similar problems.

GT15 (Europa Way) relates well to the proposed areas of growth and might be a suitable site in the long term, although its size and shape makes the provision of internal open space with good casual surveillance difficult. Noise from Europa Way could also be a problem.

Hello
I wish to register my objection to the New Local Plan (2013) of Warwick District Council and in particular the proposal to place a Gypsy and Traveller Site at GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road.
I have read the planning document and realise that it is necessary to offer a site for Gypsies and Travellers that is accessible and gives good access to local services. However, the local services are already stretched in the area with primary and secondary schools full. Access to a GP is already difficult as evidenced by the lengthy times taken to get an appointment with a doctor or nurse at the nearby New Dispensary Doctors Practice. Emergency appointments are available at present but these would be under increased demand if a transient population is nearby, giving further difficulty for routine and preventative care. The planning document emphasizes that it is essential that a new site for Gypsies and Travellers is not liable to flooding. The proposed GT11 site is known amongst local residents to be prone to regular flooding, though it is possible that this is not recorded in local flooding plots as the area does not currently have any important use. I realise that flooding can be avoided with work to waterways but that would be an unnecessary expense if the GT11 were not used. Further any work to prevent flooding will only move the problem to other locations.
Another difficulty I have with the proposal is due to the inevitable increase in traffic. I live on Purser Drive which is already a major thoroughfare for the estate. Most of the traffic along Purser Drive is local, mainly made up of private cars and small deliveries. The only larger vehicles regularly passing are for deliveries to the shops on the estate as building traffic is routed through the parts of the estate yet to be completed. When larger vehicles passes our house we can feel the vibrations in the building. A proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at GT11 would increase traffic passing our house and would often be comprised of larger vehicles including larger 4x4 cars and vans towing caravans and the larger vehicles suitable for towing.
All of the above are reasons why the proposal for a Gypsy and Traveller Site at GT11 would make life for me and my family and other residents of Chase Meadow Estate less pleasant.

I was wondering if any of our councillors have actually visited any up and running gypsy/travellers sites?
My husband had a friend that was a warden on the site in Nuneaton.
He had to buy a guard dog, because the first time he went out, they literally stripped his house. At various times, they broke into his car, stole his tax disc. stole his wife's disability badge. and anything else of value. He came home one day, and the dog had one of the gypsy's trapped in a cupboard. They thought they'd see if the dog was as good as they'd been told. They often came back with kids bikes etc. quite obviously stolen. He got sick of calling the police to them.
We went to visit them, and the alarm on our car went off. My husband went out, and their kids were trying to get into our boot.
If you site any of these people in close proximity to any houses, you will have a lot of very unhappy people on your hands. Out on the Fosse way, yes, but not near houses. On the triangle by the M40, ok if necessary. You get a chance to catch them before they get back to site, or sell it on.
Please, Please do not site them near Warwick.
We are the county town, we have little enough left to be proud of. Please don't turn us into a horse fair town.
I do understand the government is foisting this act upon you, but think hard and long before you make your final choice.

I went to the meeting at Aylesford. but despite there being 2/3 of us being there to discuss this problem, they still took the housing first. As i'm disabled and have emphasema, I stayed till 8 pm; but it became too hot for me to breath. So had to leave. They said it would be 9 pm before it was even started talking about it.

Please take this e-mail as my protest against a site on or near Hampton Road, Warwick.

Housing I understand we need, and as Chase Meadow is already there, you may as well add to it.

I wish to object in the strongest of terms to both the Revised Development Strategy and the siting of Gypsies and Travellers Sites in close proximity to Chase Meadow Housing Estate. I particularly want to object to the locating of Gypsies & Travellers Sites in particular:

* GT 11(Hampton Road)
* GT 17 (Southbound A46)
* GT 18 (Northbound A46)
* GT 20 (M40 Junc 15)

I strongly object to the proposed Options fro Travellers sites as those outlined above are in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' as the local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, surrounding roads and social facilities. This I know has been supported by letters from both Aylesford and Newburgh Schools.

As recognised within the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' it should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: the current discord the issue has created shows that this requirement would not be met and is in direct conflict with this requirement.

Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire and once again, the siting of Gypsies and Travellers Sites as you enter Warwick is in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' as these sites would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade. I am also aware that the sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

We have witnessed a worsening situation over recent years with flooding, a situation which shows no sign of changing in future years and the site on the Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.

I hope you look at these views in the round and reject the proposed locations above as they are not suitable and in direct conflict with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

My name is Ian Yarde and I live at 1 Jacombe Close Warwick CV34 6JN on the Chase Meadow estate and I write to formally object to the above proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites.

In relation to site GT11, I would object on the grounds that this site:

1 will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services- there are already not enough school places and doctors and dentists to service the local community;
2 will not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community;
3 will have an adverse impact on the entrance to the Chase Meadow Estate and have potential to cause road safety issues with regard to the entrance onto Hampton Road
4 will not be capable of being integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.

In relation to sites GT17, GT18 and GT20, I would object on the grounds that these sites:

1 will not avoid areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;
2 will not provide convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport;
3 will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services- there are already not enough schools places and doctors and dentists to service the local community

I would like to register my concern over the proposed sites around south Warwickshire in particular to the site opposite the chase meadow estate. I do not feel we have the infrastructure to accommodate this level of community who will put additional burden on local service ie doctors, hospital, education etc especially with the plans for additional housing proposed in the local area which again will put more strain on the above areas, road network especially through town as no measure can elevate the narrowness of the roads without serious risk to historic building yet to mention the already polluted air.

It is a know fact the gypsy traveller although council state they want to be part of the community is not the case. They do not conform to working practices that enable a sustainable support to local communities and this is not my prejudice this is fact.

The proposals by council/government for 500sqm per pitch is ridiculous and out of proportion to the neighbouring developments which appears to give them beneficial rights over current occupiers of this beautiful town.

Tourism is a major attraction and support to local business and to sustaining the town we love and in my opinion this should be a priority measure over the other proposals and maintain the character of a historic town without the eyesore of gypsy sites where prejudice will always be against them regardless of their intentions.

Therefore in summary I do not feel this is the right decision to our community and resource and strongly oppose the plans.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to raise my objections to the proposed Gypsy/Traveller sites that are adjacent to Chase Meadow and the Forbes Estate (GT11).

Firstly there will be too much pressure on local schools, Doctors surgeries and amenities. Chase Meadow is an already growing estate with new builds currently extending the estate, this already puts pressure on the local primary schools who are already struggling to provide places this year. The Doctors surgery already has to cover the Chase Meadow estate, the Forbes estate and surrounding areas in Warwick. With one of the proposed Gypsy/Traveller sites being across the road from Chase Meadow and the Forbes, and being one of the larger proposed sites I feel it is unacceptable and unfair to place the site in that location, so close to an already heavily populated area. It will also cause house prices in the area to decrease and prospective buyers will be put off by the traveller sites being in such close proximity.

Secondly, the Hampton Road site is on a flood plain and given the amount of rainfall we have had in recent years it would be very likely that it would flood.

Thirdly, I do not believe that the settled community and traveller community would be able to live peacefully alongside each other and become integrated given the amount of discord amongst the local community as shown in the consultation that took place at the Aylesford School meeting on the 15th July. This is one of the requirements for such sites and I don't believe that this can be met.

I hope that my concerns will be taken into consideration when deciding which sites will go ahead.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of permanent traveller sites in the proximity of the Chase Meadow Estate in Warwick. This has been a quiet and well regarded neighbourhood for a number of years and the proposed development of traveller sites, especially the GT11 land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (as well as sites GT20, GT17 and GT18) will be a permanent blight on the community, significantly affecting the quality of life for residents of this respectable area.

The infrastructure is not in place to accommodate traveller communities. GPs and Schools are already at or over capacity and traffic is a problem at peak times in this area. But my overriding concern is the impact on our community. Locating a traveller site next to an already built up, well established and respectable residential area is illogical - why would the council consider locating a traveller site in this area is beyond me, and I wish to formally lodge an objection, urging councillors to see sense and locate the sites away from established residential areas and avoid the inevitable conflicts, concerns and issues which will result if the sites are located near here.

I am writing to you this morning to express my concerns and dissatisfaction regarding your proposals for Gypsy and Traveller Sites in and around the Warwick area - in particular, the proposed site on Hampton Road by the racecourse.

I am a resident in Warwick Chase estate, located extremely near to this proposed site. I have only recently moved into the area in the last year and have a small family (my daughter was born last October).

Whilst I'm extremely happy with the local facilities in terms of their close proximity and convenience, I can already see an impact on surrounding roads, Doctors and local facilities due to the large number of people moving into the area. This area has undergone significant development over the last few years and there is definitely an overburden on the area.

I'm particularly concerned regarding schools too - it won't be long before I send my daughter to school and I am already concerned about how difficult this may become due to the higher number of applicants.

I'm extremely concerned that allowing these sites will only exacerbate the issues I've just outlined. I believe the local infrastructure will simply not be able to support one or more of these sites and after reading your planning policy, this appears to be in direct conflict with the policy.

Also, the proposed site on Hampton Road is extremely close to green belt land and sits within part of the flood plain. I believe green belt land should be protected where possible and also, any further building work / hard standing within that area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain and put that area at further risk - severely impacting us local residents.

Taking all of these reasons into account, I strongly object to your proposals and would ask that you take serious thought in re-considering / reviewing your original proposals.

After having talked to many people I know living locally, I can assure you their sentiments are the same - there is an overriding feeling of strong objection and this is shared widely across the local area.

Dear Sir/Madam

We write to you in response to the above consultation document. We object in particular to the following proposed sites in the consultation document: GT11, 17, 18 and 20. We also object in principle to the plan to put any sites in Warwick District.

In paragraph 1.1, you state that the Council is required to meet the needs of the population in the area. The placing of these sites will encourage travelers from outside of the area to settle in the area, therefore the whole premise of your proposal is wrong. What about the needs, quality of life and standard of living of the population of Warwick that is already here, and pays you Council Tax? You should be putting our rights ahead of those that do not live here, and do not wish to live in a manner that is compatible with 99.7% of the population.

We object to the proposal on the basis of a likely increase in crime:-
At the meeting at Aylesford School on 15th July, a question was made from the floor about the issue of crime that travellers bring. The member of the council responsible for Gypsy and Traveller sites stated that there is no evidence to say that there is a difference in crime between travelers and the general population. This generalised comparison given by the council member compared travellers to the entire population. This is not relevant, the comparison should be made to the District of Warwick, where crime is lower than average, therefore it follows that if there is no difference in crime between travellers and the total population, then there must be a difference in crime between the travellers and Warwick District, and therefore there will be an increase in crime if you allow travellers to settle in Warwick.

We also object to all proposals on the basis that they will make a very attractive and pretty town (except for Barrack Street car park and the Council offices in Market Square), look bad. Warwick is the most historic town in Warwickshire. The sites will have a negative impact on how the town will be viewed, and would have a negative impact on tourism which is the lifeblood of the town and upon which a lot of businesses rely. Furthermore, site GT11 will also have a negative impact on Warwick race course which is also vitally important to the town, and also a key element of the local community given the other events that it hosts throughout the year.

We also object to the proposal in particular on site GT11 as it will place increasing pressure on local infrastructure. There are already further new homes being built which is adding to the demand on, amongst other things, GP services, schools etc. Site GT11 is also far too close to a large housing development. The location of travellers here will create tension with a population that has only recently invested in living in a nice area.

Chris White, MP for Warwick and Leamington, supports us in our opposition to site number GT11 and the fact that you should listen to residents, please see attached letter. I hope you will listen to the MP.

If traveller sites are needed at all, they should be somewhere that is remote from the rest of the population to avoid tensions and avoid negatively affecting the quality of life of the people who have worked hard to buy a nice place to live in a nice area, and equally will cause less stress to the travellers. I believe that there is already one site that is out of the way on Kites Nest Lane. This site also counters your point made at the 15th July meeting that sites need to be near facilities. Not everyone who works hard has the luxury of being able to live next door to everything that they may need on a particular occasion. As the sites are proposed for travellers, perhaps you should take into account the fact that they like travelling.

I hope you realise the amount of concern amongst existing residents your proposals have caused. At the meeting on 15th July, which was predominantly attended by Chase Meadow residents, it was clear that almost 100% of those in attendance were against the proposals. I only heard one voice all evening in defence of the proposal from the floor. You will be making a massive error if you go against the residents. Therefore I hope you will withdraw your proposal for a site at GT11 immediately, because it will show you just do not care about resident opinions if you persevere with this site and others.

Opposition to using Priorsfield School as part of the provision for the travellers site in Bagington.
There is no pupil capacity in the school for extra pupils. Places will be reduced for local children. The size of catchment area is already very small - leaving families who live near the school unable to attend. It is particularly concerning to think of allowing extra pupils within the infant section of the school above the recommended number. The needs of siblings and people who live very locally should be on equal footing for places.
The disruptive nature of pupils leaving and joining classes. Priorsfield is a small school and is less ability to manage fluctuations in pupil numbers - there should be a max number of places of traveller places. I would ask that there be a cap on the number of possible places.
The school has just had an Ofsted report that indicates it 'Needs Improvement' - but no financial support has been given. Stretching the staff in other ways is not going to help the school move forward from this position. It particularly needs to extend pupils to level 6 at Key Stage 2. Your information indicates that children form travelling communities will be behind national average ability making the spread of differentiation particularly difficult.
I understand that Traveller children need to be catered for in terms of their schooling and know that Priorsfield may need to be part of the solution but I am concerned that this will not be managed or funded properly and has the capacity to overwhelm the school.

Dear Sir,

Objection to proposed Gypsy and Traveller site GT11

There are four proposed sites for Gypsy and Traveller sites close to Chase Meadow.

Access to GT11 will be from the A4189, a very busy road, outside the 30mph zone. Cars race down the hill from Hampton on the Hill, and fast over the A46 bridge before hitting the 30mph limit. There will be road safety issues with vehicles turning in to/out from this entrance into fast moving traffic.

At GT11, access to the site is via a farm access road closed and locked by double farm gates. If all pitches on site are full, and there is open access to the farm road, I can see a situation where new travellers or family members of site 'residents' turn up and camp/park along the farm access road. This will be in contradiction to planning consent, and I imagine that the company running the site will be faced with continuous problems in evicting extra travellers pitching up short term. There will be litter to clear, time wasting and legal expenses to move on the extra visitors, and the local residents will not be happy.

The views from the A4189 on approach to historic Warwick are fabulous, looking over the racecourse to the town, and you should consider the loss of this stunning view which will be ruined by the view of GT11. The benefit to the town of tourism is key in these hard economic times and we should be doing all we can to bring tourists into the town and making our town attractive.

The provision of grazing has to be made for travellers' horses, and I do not consider GT11 is suitable for horses to be brought into the site which is next to the stables at Warwick Racecourse. Race horses are very valuable and fit, and they are vaccinated against many diseases. Equine Influenza is a highly contagious viral infectious disease of horses that can cause serious effects in susceptible animals; usually an episode of acute respiratory disease with clinical signs beginning abruptly and including high fever, nasal discharge, enlarged lymph glands, and coughing. If non-vaccinated horses are living near the stables, owners of racehorses will not want to bring their valuable horses to Warwick to race, and this will have a serious impact on Warwick retaining its great racecourse and the trade from other events held at the premises.
I think you should consider in the Local Plan of adding traveller and gypsy pitches, in the same way as social housing, to any new housing development. It should be mandatory for developers to include provision for them on their land as a quid pro quo for having planning permission to build new homes.

As there have been many objections to having a traveller and gypsy site at GT11 it will be difficult to "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence". I believe that it is too close to a high density residential area, and that you would do better to look at GT17 and GT18 with the advantage that they already have existing services.

Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you as a resident of Chase Meadow to object to one of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites, specifically the land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (site GT11).


Firstly, after attending the meeting at Aylesford School about the New Local Plan, and the proposed Traveller Sites, it became clear that a direct conflict with the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites was very much in evidence in the room- I refer of course to the point that the location of the site should 'promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community'. The heated discussion and the views of the residents that were put forward that evening show that this requirement would most definitely not be met!


Secondly, I feel that the local infrastructure in The South-West Warwick area is already at overload point due to the extensive development that has happened over the past 10 years on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park. Again, I believe that this conflicts another requirement of the Planning Policy- the local schools, surrounding roads, social facilities, and the doctors (I say this with a pregnant wife who finds it difficult enough to contact her midwife as it is!) would not be able to support one or more of these sites in the locality.


As for the impact of the site(s) on 'Historic Warwick' itself, another direct conflict with the Planning Policy requirements is that the site(s) will have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed and will doubtless negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and the numerous local businesses who rely on it for their trade.
The racecourse is one of the town of Warwick's biggest investors, and draws many race goers and tourists. Also, another point to note is that the recent stable block developments the racecourse have made for owners to prepare their race horses would be within a short distance from the proposed sites. There are potential risks of diseases being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred race horses. This will potentially discourage the owners themselves from bring their horses to Warwick!


I sincerely hope that you will consider the points I have made (and no doubt many others have also raised) and the potential consequences for the area, if the plans were to go ahead.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to register my objections to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in the vicinity of the Chase Meadow Estate. I have lived in Chase Meadows Estate for a number of years now and I believe these proposals are short-sighted and ill-conceived.

Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire. It is important that the beauty and historical attraction of the town is carefully managed and protected. In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' these sites would have a dramatic and adverse impact on how the town is viewed. It will negatively impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse, and many local businesses who heavily rely on it for trade.

I attended the Public Meeting at Aylesford School and it was abundantly clear from the turn out, response, queries and points that were raised that the vast majority of the residents of this area do not support this plan. This is in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' which should promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Also, of major concern is the fact the Hampton Road (GT11) site sits in part within the Flood plain. I walk my dog regularly past this site and I can assure you that parts of the site has been underwater for long periods of the year. Concreting over it is simply absurd and a recipe for further flooding problems in the local area.

We wish to object to the new local plan on the following grounds.

1 The local infrastructure will not support one or more of the proposed gipsy sites.

2 The sites are too close to the new racecourse stable block.

3 We believe the sites will have a negative impact on tourism at both the racecourse and the town center.

Dear Sir(s)

Please lodge my objection to the proposed Traveller Sites around Warwick.

I believe that there are four proposed sites close to Warwick itself. As Warwick is the most historical town in Warwickshire this plan can only negatively impact tourism in the local area. Why would the local council want to do anything that could impact revenue coming into the area in the current economic climate?

Further I believe that the Chase Meadows estate agents / house builders are all opposed. Again, why would the council embark on a course of action that is likely to adversely affect new house sales in the local area?

I am writing to protest about the possible siting of a permanent gypsy encampment near the racecourse, Hampton Road and the Chase Meadow estate.

The proposal is seriously flawed for at least 2 significant reasons. First the proposed site will be located in an area where there is a major flood risk. The Environment Department's website clearly shows this. it would be sheer folly to locate the encampment in such an area. Other possible sites do not carry the same danger.

Secondly, the siting of such an encampment alongside and/or within clear sight of the racecourse would surely have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the racecourse to potential raceday visitors. The undoubtedly very negative reputation that gypsies have, whether merited or not, will be certain to discourage at least some racegoers from attending at a time when the racecourse is already facing difficult times financially. I also understand that there is a serious health risk to racehorses and (nearby residents' pets) from dogs owned by gypsies as, generally, these are not properly vaccinated or inoculated against common animal diseases. This again is likely to discourage racehorse owners and trainers from entering their horses on Warwick racedays. The popularity of the racecourse with racegoers generally will simply enter a downward spiral, from which the racecourse will find it difficult to recover.
In turn this will adversely affect businesses in the town as fewer visitors will come.

I would object strongly to the proposed site on Hampton Road, Warwick but in general oppose placing 'Gypsy' travellers near to established town residential developments such as Chase Meadow. For the following reasons

1.I see no reason why exceptions to current planning need to be made. If a person wishes to live in an area then they have to follow the same method as the rest of us. Buy a residence, rent a residence privately or local authority or apply for a planning application subject to the same rules as everyone else. Not following these methods would make any land occupation, construction illegal in addition to current criminal powers.

2.The lifestyle of Gypsies is well documented as being incompatible with non Gypsies. This would generally fall into the category of anti social behaviour. This would be documented in publically available information on crime involvement from current Gypsie sites.

3.The site would create increased stress on local public services.

4.Increase stress on local heath service, the local doctors surgery.

5.Increase public order situations in local public houses.

6.Increase incidents related to the racecourse. Gypsie attendance in horse racing is documented and it is logical to assume having a site on the perimeter with impact on public order, theft and criminal damage.

7.Increased traffic usage onto the Hampton Road.

8.Noise levels at the location if allowed. Currently there is a constant background noise generated from vehicular traffic on the A46 bypass. This is noticeable in brick built properties already. The noise levels in caravans will obviously be greater. It is therefore likely that additional noise reduction engineering will be required to the A46 at considerable cost.

9.The current estate is exceptional in that it has low crime, active social movement by its residents, for example the building of community centre by community. It would be gambling to place Gypsies who do not interact with communities into such a location.

This whole idea is ridiculous. The Gypsie way of life is insular and as such has put itself under the minority category.

see attached

We live on Chase Meadow and attended the meeting at Aylesford School on 15th July in order to learn more about the proposed sites, 4 of which are within a short distance from our estate.

We understand the requirement to meet Government guidelines regarding these sites but cannot accept that the selection of sites has to be so close to residential developments.

1)The response from residents of our estate has been overwhelmingly against any site in this vicinity. If one of the aims is to integrate the different communities, this is already doomed to failure because of the antagonism and hostility that is evident and was expressed at the meeting.

2)The town of Warwick is a tourist attraction and any site within close proximity to the town would have a detrimental effect because of the visual impact of such a development on entering a town of special interest.

3)The areas around Hampton Lane are prone to flooding and the already existing problem would only be exacerbated by further hard-standings and buildings.

4)We understand that the race-course have concerns about the risk to thoroughbreads stabled near the race-track, due to cross-infection from the travellers/gypsies livestock.

5)We are concerned about the management of the sites and what control the authority would have if they become over-subscribed or if the waste- management is not adequately dealt with. Would the rate payers have to foot the bill if the managers cannot make the sites sufficient economically viable to be properly maintained?

6)Of all the proposed sites, Hampton Lane/Budbrook Lodge is the most adjacent to a large housing development, which is continuing to expand rapidly with consequent pressures on schools, doctors and other facilities.

7) Have the travelling community been asked if they want to live near residential developments? The overall impression is that the travellers prefer a rural environment with their own closed communities and sense of privacy. They are mobile with cars and touring vans and can access the social facilities they need without being adjacent to them. For this reason, countryside plots would be more acceptible to both them and us.

8)Reading the objections to Kites Nest Lane, it appears that it is the enfringemnt of the Green Belt that is of most concern. If the practical issues of access, sewage, etc. can be resolved in the same way as they would have to be addressed in a new site, why cannot there be some compromise on the reclassification of the Green Belt for exceptional circumstances? This would apply not just to Kites Nest Lane but also to another area in the north of the district, as we are not talking about mass development but semi-rural use.

General comments
I have lived in Warwick for over 20 years, and as a child grew up in Chesterton, Warwickshire. As a teenager I gave evidence to the Barn Hill Service Station inquiry; objecting to the loss of part of Chesterton Wood and the environmental impact to the hamlet of Chesterton and its wildlife. Obviously we lost that battle (thanks to Mr Heseltine) but I can drive past the M40 services knowing that I used the full process available to state my concerns at the time.

My reasons for comment on the Gypsy and Traveller site options follow that same logic; sites are needed but some sites are wholly unsuitable.

Also, my parents own 9 acres of land close to Middle Farm, Bishops Tachbrook which we use as a family for leisure purposes. The land has been planted with trees and native plants as a sanctuary for wildlife including foxes, badgers, deer, birds of prey as well as bees, butterflies and many birds.

Site Suitability - GT03 Land at Bamwell Farm, Harbury Lane COMMENT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
there would be undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. It would be unsafe for pedestrian access to Harbury or Whitnash.

Site Suitability - GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way COMMENT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
there would be undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. It would be unsafe for pedestrian access to Harbury or Whitnash.

Site Suitability - GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick. Also there are listed buildings on the site which would be adversely affected by building work.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

Site Suitability - GT06 Land at Park Farm Spinney Farm OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Warwick until the pavement starts at the junction with Barford Hill.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick.

Site Suitability - GT09 Land to the North East of M40 OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick. Also there are listed buildings on the site which would be adversely affected by building work.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

Site Suitability - GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre OBJECT

I do not consider this suggested site to be convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport;
The Banbury Road is still a very fast and busy road and there would not be safe access to the road network. It would be too dangerous for pedestrian access into Bishops Tachbrook to catch public transport or attend the GP surgery.
There would be adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area into historic Warwick.
I don't believe that this proposed site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
This proposed site would place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

There is the potential for noise and disturbance to the Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre and Tollgate Farm. This would not p
romote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community. I would question the viability of the businesses already at this location should the site be developed as proposed.

Site Suitability - GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road COMMENT

This site would give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport; and s
afe access to the road network.

There could be
adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic
environment as the Racecourse has varied habitats and ground nesting birds. It is difficult to know if the s
ite can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. It is also hard to decide if
peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community could be promoted. I am not sure if there would be
undue pressure on local infrastructure and services (including GP, dentist and school places)

I would question if this site is in a flood area. There is
the potential for noise and other disturbance.

Site Suitability - GT12 - Land North and West of Westham Lane OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Barford.

I would be surprised if this area does not have a high risk of flooding being so close to the Avon which certainly floods along the A429 towards Wellesbourne.

If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Site Suitability - GT14 - Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Norton Lindsey. If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

The access to the Warwick Road would be dangerous with blind bends and a notorious dangerous cross roads (New Road and Brittons Lane). It would be dangerous for pedestrians to walk into Norton Lindsey or Warwick along this road as the pavements don't start for some distance.

I would question the impact to the viability of the poultry business if this site was developed as proposed.

Site Suitability - GT15 - Land East of Europa Way OBJECT

This site would be inconvenient for access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. The nearest would be Heathcote/Warwick Gates/Whitnash. There is already a huge problem with the lack of school places as Warwick Gates has not had the school built that was required. This would put undue pressure on services and not promote the peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local communities.

With the Tach Brook so close is the area at risk of flooding and could there be an adverse impact on the natural environment if the site was used for domestic and business operations. Europa Way is a busy road and it would be unsafe to access the road network on the gradual bend. There is no pedestrian access.

Site Suitability - GT16 - Land West of A429 Barford OBJECT

This site may give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport but I am not sure if this would be without undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services in Barford.

I would be surprised if this area does not have a high risk of flooding being so close to the Avon which certainly floods along the A429 towards Wellesbourne.

If there was inadequate GP, dentist, School provision then it would be difficult to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

Site Suitability - GT17 - Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way COMMENT

I am not sure if this site would give convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. If this was from Hampton Magna or Warwick the pedestrian access would need to be improved. Although there is a footpath across the A46 this is so busy it would be too dangerous for pedestrians especially children. I think the A46 is prone to flooding on the west side. There would be safe a
ccess to the road network for a vehicle to join the A46 from the garage slip road.

This site would only promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community if there was no
undue pressure on local infrastructure and services. Budbrooke School in Hampton Magna already has a problem with over-subscription because the new Hatton Park housing estate has never had a school built.

Site Suitability - GT18 - Service area East of A46 Old Budbrooke Way COMMENT

There is possible convenient access to a GP surgery on the Woodloes or Cape Road and schools/public transport in Warwick. Pedestrian access through the Racecourse would be a possibility. School, dentist and GP places would have to be increased in Warwick otherwise there would be undue pressure on local services and it would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence.

There would be safe access to the A46 road network for a vehicle, There could be an impact on the natural environment of the Racecourse wildlife and habitat.

Site Suitability - GT19 - Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm COMMENT

This site would provide convenient access to a GP surgery, school and public transport either in Hampton Magna or Warwick. There is pedestrian access along the Birmingham Road into Warwick and Hampton Magna. The speedlimit is lower on this stretch of the Birmingham Road to make the access to the road network safe. I do not know if the site is prone to flooding with the Gog Brook and Canal close by. There could be environmental concerns but businesses with high risk of pollution (farm/petrol station) operate from this stretch of the Birmingham Road at the moment.

To promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community there would have to be improvements to service provision, particularly schooling provision in Warwick or Hampton Magna as Hatton Park Estate already over-subscribes Budbrooke School.


Site Suitability - GT20 - Land at Junction 15 M40 OBJECT

20 years ago development at J15 M40 for a service station was dismissed by Mr Hesletine. I can't remember all the reasons but presumably they still stand for any type of development at this location.

This proposed site is inconvenient for access to a GP surgery, school and public transport. There are no footpaths into Hampton on the Hill or Warwick. There would be safe access to the road network for vehicles. Substantial investment for the provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc) would appear to be necessary for this site. There could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment with the two water courses close by.

Peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community would not be achieved unless there is extra resource for local infrastructure and services improvements including school and dentist provision.

GT01 / GT02 / GT07 / GT08 / GT13
I don't have sufficient knowledge of the locations to comment.

I do not have any other suggestions for suitable land in the District

Dear Sir / Madam

We are writing with regards to the above consultation and specifically with respect to GT11. We are concerned about the proposed traveller sites near Chase Meadow for the following reasons:

- it will result in a strain on the existing infrastructure which has been sized to take account of the existing and approved developments in this area.

- it is too close to an expanding residential area, contrary to the aims of reducing tension between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions.

- the area is prone to flooding and most recently in the autumn 2012 Hampton Road flooded in at least two locations at and near the proposed site.

- it would be detrimental to the racecourse (which is host to many national events) and the historical aspect of Warwick, which are both fundamental to the appeal of the town and surrounding area, and indeed its economic prosperity.

- houses backing onto Hampton Rd already suffer from road noise, however we would be concerned that without adequate controls and a commitment from the district council, there would be an unacceptable increase in the level of noise.

Regards

Catherine Plant & Adam Brown

I would like to register my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites in SW Warwick;

1. The infrastructure just cannot cope with even more pressure on it's roads especially as Chase Meadow is still under construction that will not be completed for several more years.As most homeowners have at least one or more cars per household the extra pressure on our roads especially Stratford Road and the more problematic Hampton road any further traffic from this area would create a tremendous burden .Race days already cause problems with traffic and parking,especially side streets and verges.

2. The local schools and Doctors surgeries are already under pressure and should not be put under any more strain to enable them to work efficiently.

3. The site proposed on Hampton road has parts which are on the local flood plain and should not be built on.

4.Warwick. is a beautiful old town.It' popularity with visitors should not be blighted by the fact that a traveller site with all it's implications stands within a fantastic historical area.I feel this would deter visitors from the town thereby affecting local businesses.

5.Air pollution is becoming a real problem in this area due to fumes from increased traffic.

6. I am also deeply concerned about the environmental effects on the wildlife and possible pollution problems on Gog Brook,also potential risk of transferable disease from unvaccinated animals to animals in the surrounding area i.e race horses.

I hope all of my objections and concerns will be taken into account at the next meeting to discuss the planned sites