GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

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

Network Rail is the "not for dividend" owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.

With regards to the proposal Network Rail has the following comments to make, which are from a desktop study of the document only.

Sites GT04 (land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way) and GT11 (land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Rd) are directly adjacent to Network Rail and the operational railway.

We would therefore request that any site option includes provision (at the applicant's expense) for a minimum 1.8m high trespass proof fence adjacent to Network Rail's boundary and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal without encroachment upon or over-sailing of Network Rail land. Network Rail's existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged and at no point either during construction or after works are completed on site should the foundations of the fencing or wall or any embankment therein be damaged, undermined or compromised in any way. Any vegetation on Network Rail land and within Network Rail's boundary must also not be disturbed. Any fencing installed by the applicant must not prevent Network Rail from maintaining its own fencing/boundary treatment. Any existing Network Rail fencing at the site has been erected to take account of the risk posed at the time the fencing was erected and not to take into account any presumed future use of the site, where increased numbers of people and minors may be using the areas adjacent to the operational railway. Therefore, any proposed residential site option development imports a risk of trespass onto the railway, which we would remind the council, is a criminal offence (s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949). As the applicant has chosen to develop a proposal next to the railway, they are requested to provide a suitable trespass proof fence to mitigate any risks imported by the proposal.

Network Rail is a publicly funded organisation with a regulated remit; it would not be reasonable to require Network Rail to fund boundary works, fencing and boundary enhancements necessitated by third party commercial development adjacent to the railway.

I am writing in protest of the proposed Traveller/Gypsy sites to be located around the estate of Chase Meadow.

I have lived in Warwick all my life to which I am very proud of.

Warwick is a historical town, I believe it is actually the oldest historical town in Warwickshire, which has always struggled to have sufficient facilities/attractions/ marketing for visitors to want to spent time walking around the town rather than just visiting Warwick Castle. Warwick has just started turning a corner with more shop units being occupied with independent shops and cafe's. It is now an attractive option for visitors to spend the day wondering the streets and cafes. To have a permanent traveller site at the key entry into Warwick, especially at the edge of Warwick Racecourse which attracts many visitors each year to its race meetings, will discourage tourists from doing anything other than visiting the Castle.

For many years Warwick people and the Council have worked hard to keep the visual beauty of Warwick untouched. To see caravans and vans as your first image of 'historical Warwick' would certainly not fit the image Warwick Tourism has tried to portray over the years. This in turn will mean that many of the shops and cafe's that rely on this revenue will close, with loss of local jobs and revenue to the Council from business rates etc.

Whilst I appreciate the 4 sites proposed around Chase Meadow, have been done so because of the facilities and public transport on Chase Meadow, the bigger picture needs to be considered.

The local schools are full to capacity. Aylesford a school I attended as a child has already lost most of its sport ground to allow for expansion. It cannot possibly sustain any further developments and with the new houses already approved for Chase Meadow, it is at its limit. Unlike Heathcote which has included in its plans further schools and facilities, the new houses on our estate do not have that luxury and will have to be absorbed within the already stretched facilities.

The Doctors surgery on the estate does not have capacity for its current patients with appointments having to be book quite far ahead, emergency appointments are impossible, and I have still been unable to secure a NHS dentist in the area due to long waiting lists so am currently paying privately.

The roads on the new part of Chase Meadow are currently unadopted by the council as they say the lake is not deep enough to deal with the run off of rain water from the houses currently and proposed on the estate. How is removing more porous land close to the estate going to help that. I would say that it will add more to the issues. I am surprised that the land is even suitable to be made hard standing with the Gogg Brook and the annual flooding of the field by Budbroke Lodge, as it does each year.

The site on Hampton Road itself does not have sufficient access on what is already a busy main road into Warwick for the additional traffic this will bring. The road itself is already prone to flooding which causes traffic issues during these periods. As above, this will happen more often if fields are replaced for hard standing.

The deeds on my property detail that we cannot have caravans, commercial vehicles etc in view of ground floor properties. This was an attraction to me and many residents when purchasing the properties as it retained the natural beauty of the estate in keeping with the expectation of Warwick. How can a caravan site only metres from properties with these restrictions on 'houses' be granted. Does that mean that the conditions on our properties enforceable?

see attached

see-attached

I have an interest in opposing the proposed new sites in two parts of the District as I own a property in Barford and also own a property in Hatton and would be directly affected by the proposed sites in Barford, Budbrooke and Beausale.

My experience of Gypsies has been entirely negative, having been subjected to them walking onto my property, going into back gardens, raking through skips and generally poking around looking for scrap metal to steal. When challenged they become abusive and on one occasion I was assaulted, resulting in the Police being called.

If the Council had decided simply to blight property values across the District it could not have done a more effective job than by designating these many sites for consultation. All houses up to a mile from the proposed sites are currently unsaleable until a decision is made.

Two or three isolated, potential sites should have been identified rather than the scattergun approach which has been taken which has caused such damage.

I know that the Council has a duty to make provision for a number of pitches, but traveller rights always seem to "trump" those of the settled Community who actually pay for all of the Council services and cannot avoid HMRC.

It is completely unacceptable to parachute this group of people with very different values into settled Communities, thereby adversely affecting the lives of many tax-payers for the convenience of these groups. Let us not shy away from the adverse effect that they always have on neighbours.

As provision must be made for them then locate it well away from existing communities and provide the facilities that are needed, at that location. Purchase at full market value, plus removal expenses, all nearby properties where the owners wish to move away, or compensate them properly for loss of value if they choose to stay.

In any event, speed up this process to minimise and bring to a halt the state of "limbo" into which the Council has plunged large numbers of people.

As I understand that these objections are published I do not wish my address to be available publicly but can be contacted on this e mail address.

See Attached

see attached

I have attended a number of local meetings regarding the local plan and do recognise the difficult position elected members and officers have been placed in in pulling this document together. However I continue to feel that it is unfair and untenable.

Just because North Leamington residents got together quickly and financed themselves into a position to lobby and discredit the first plan option of building between Milverton and Blackdown should not mean that there is no development north of the district. One key reason for building affordable family homes in the north was to re-invigorate a fossilising community. The demographic trend in Milverton, Cubbington and beyond is for older people and this is storing up problems for the future. Neighbourhoods and villages work best with a good spread of community - old and young sharing services and supporting each other. An additional reason to re-consider some development in the north of the district is with the successful Coventry/Warwick Gateway developments application. I note officers stated that this will open up jobs for Coventry people more that Warwick District residents but I also believe many will come from and/or want to live in Warwickshire. Because of this late- in-the -day decision I do feel planners should go back to the drawing board on developments north of Warwick district.

In terms of developing close to villages - particularly Hampton Magna - it is now apparent that families purchasing homes here need to have special land checks completed and organise specific insurances to cover the fact that some homes are built on landfill. (When we purchased 37 years ago we believed the site was Budbrooke Barracks but further investigation is showing a land fill sites also). The development land proposed on the outskirts of Hampton Magna could well feature ex-landfill sites and therefore become more expensive tracts to build on or develop. Additionally the local school and doctors surgery are full to capacity and would struggle to cope with additional demands on services - particularly having recently coped with influx of residents from Hatton Park and Chase Meadow.

Feedback on the proposed gypsy and traveller sites includes the unfairness of just how many sites are located around the county town of Warwick. I, and most people I know, recognise that sites need to be developed but again these need to be fairly distributed around Warwick District not only for current residents but also for travelling families to have some choices of where they settle. Planners may well quote that fairness is not a legal requirement but it is certainly a community requirement. I don't believe the developments alongside the A46 (ex Little Chef sites North and South) are appropriate. Not only is one site on green belt land - they are both immediately adjacent to a very fast road and have poor or no walkways or public transport access. Families and domestic animals should not be placed so closely to a fast road and they should have access to available services (see above for lack of school and GP capacity).

I feel the Racecourse site is also inappropriate due to it being placed on a major gateway into the County town and this site is also a transient site for travelling circus/fairground people through out the year - again making this choice an unfair one. Sites such as Barford and Kytes Nest Lane are significantly more appropriate due to their locations. I am also surprised that Radford Semele has little or no development proposals. There is capacity in the school there as well as good road and public transport links.

Please carefully consider all the above. I look forward to the next round of suggestions.