GT12 Land north and west of Westham Lane (area of search)

Barford, Sherbourne & Wasperton Joint Parish Council

I have responded on behalf of the JPC, with site specific comments, using your online system.

The system works well for responding to each site but does not allow wider comment - this is disastrous as most of our councillors' and residents' views go beyond the site specifics.

Please take on board the following generic views on this consultation and its proposals;
* This is a poor consultation and its timing parallel to the New Local Plan consultation has sadly had a debilitating effect on that consultation - or was that deliberate?
* The sites selected and proposed are very poor and their presentation is even worse.
* The GT12 and GT16 confusion is inexcusable and unacceptable - and the author should be made fully aware of their shortcomings - presumably it was a table-top study from someone out of the area...
* The JPC sees no reason why G&T sites should be considered any differently to any built development sites - indeed there are significant reasons to believe that the criteria applied should be stricter - eg caravans are at greater risk in flooding situations.
* Many of the proposed sites would never currently be considered for built development - evidenced by their not appearing in the main NLP proposals.
* This brings us to a major principle - G&T sites should be considered along with AND WITHIN the NLP
* G&T sites should be included within new development areas - such as the massive swathes proposed south of Warwick and Leamington - where they can be properly designed, provided at an early stage and fully integrated with their surroundings rather than parachuted into a settled community. This would make planning sense, would be acceptable to the major developers - they agree! - and most importantly would actually be best for the G&T community
* The consultation carried out by Salford University to measure Permanent G&T site needs is not remotely convincing. Their sampled population may well not be representative of actual need and would appear to be simply ticking a consultation tick-box. There are empty sites to the north of the district.
* The Sustainability Appraisal also lacks convincing evidence - it has clearly been dumbed down by its traffic light scoring system rather than the more conventional numeric scoring. The fact that on certain criteria some sites score wildly different extremes but are not averaged is bizarre! The fact that GT16 is scored as it is must cast the final doubt on this whole consultation - by objective assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal results for that site it would appear to rank in the top THREE despite being a flood compensation area!
* Whilst we understand, but may not actually agree with, the apparent requirement to address this matter on a District basis we are concerned that no cross-district boundary consideration or cooperation seems to have taken place. Specifically we consider that the Stratford DC site on the A46 just outside Sherbourne should be taken into consideration along with the problems that such an allocation have brought to the local community and indeed the WCC.
* Once again the Greenbelt issue is providing problems and requiring a district wide requirement to be shoe-horned into the small area south of Warwick/Leamington. Again this requires a more realistic and imaginative approach to how WDC deals with Greenbelt policies.

This site sits partly within and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
Access from to site from A429 Barford bypass (60mph road) not adequate, this would only add to the number of accidents on this stretch of road where there has already been a death
There are no safe pedestrian crossing points on this stretch of the A429 Barford bypass, therefore no access to community facilities and public transport on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only access to community facilities would be by motor vehicle (adding to danger turning in and out of junctions with the A429 Barford bypass)
Development at this site would have a negative impact on Barford School, a small village school which will already have to cope with the increase of students from the likely 70-90 new homes Barford will have to provide as it is a Secondary Service Village.
No access to GP in local area.
There would be an adverse effect on the landscape.
Water voles are, now a legally protected species and are believed to have been seen at this site.
This site does not allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
Development on this site would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment.
The development of this site could not take place without an adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the site.
WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which would also provide facilities such as a school, a doctor's surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

The landscape west of Barford is the flood plain of the River Avon which makes a large meander to the west. The Westham area is open pasture landscape and no development west of the Barford Bypass is likely to be permitted. A gypsy site would seriously harm this rural landscape.

The proximity to the River Avon would invite environmentally unacceptable behaviour including trespass and damage to the river banks, potential for dumping of rubbish, effluent etc. in the river.

I object to the use of this site for gypsy and traveller accommodation on the grounds that it is not as sustainable as some of the other sites suggested; access to a GP surgery, school and public transport is more convenient in areas better related to the larger settlements. The site's proximity to the Barford bypass would inevitably cause noise and disturbance and it is questionable whether a satisfactory access could be achieved with such large vehicles entering and leaving the site onto such a high speed road. It is unlikely that the site could be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. The site's proximity to an existing village may cause undue pressure on local infrastructure and services and promoting peaceful and integrated coexistence between the site and the local community may be difficult because of this.

This land is unsiutable as it is flat open country side and falls within Warwickshire County Council Landscape Project (Avon Valley) which aims are to conserve the landscape for future generation, an Inspector on a recent appeal case used as this policy as part of his refusal for a dwelling on the edge but within the village of Barford.

I object to this site on the following grounds:

There are no Doctor's surgeries nearby.
To access Schools and public transport the busy Barford by-pass would need to be crossed. This would be dangerous - especially for children.
The western part of the site is in the flood plain.

The area is noisy by virtue of it's proximity to the by-pass.

No utilities are available West of the By-pass.

There is evidence of water voles (and other protected species) in this area
thus a G & T site will have an adverse impact on the natural environment.

1. Use of this land is effectively extending the village envelope and the conservation area - this type of development was never intended to be contained within this area.
2. The current village infrastructure and utility supply does not support this type of development and I believe is on land that is either a floodplain or with high potential for flooding.
3. There is no safe crossing point on the by-pass which allows pedestrian access to the village. Access to the school would need to be by car increasing the already heavy volumes of traffic that use Church Street and High Street at peak times. With residents parked vehicles, these narrow roads are currently unsuitable to cope with the existing through traffic that is using this route as a short-cut.
4. Vehicle access to the site is directly onto the by-pass and is likely to require traffic lights to be constructed. Traffic volumes and speeds will be adversely affected particularly at peak times and Wellesbourne market days.
5. Development will result in loss of farmland and an adverse visual impact on the local environment.
6. The development outside the existing village boundaries (effectively split-off by the by-pass) does not faciltate integration into the community.

Environment Agency significant flood risk.

Inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

Existing vehicular access is inadequate.

No easy access to local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc).

Environmental impact not considered.

Capacity of school would need to be increased.

This area of search is situated within the flood plain where development is restricted by planning guidance (the NPPF). It is also understood that this is specifically a flood storage area.
It is not understood why this site was chosen in the areas of search as it is in an area of a high risk of flooding? Development of any kind on this site would have an adverse impact on the drainage features and could increase the risk of flooding to the village.

This site is situated within a flood zone. Any development should not be permitted as it would have an impact on the current drainage pattern and could increase the likelihood of flooding within the village of Barford. During 2012/2013 Wellesbourne Road has experienced groundwater flooding in numerous properties.
There are no provision of utilties at the site and no sustainable foul drainage system in place.

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.

Objections on the basis of:
- agricultural land and this should be kept as such ref Government policy biodiversity
- safety and security issues for village and surrounds
- environmental impact
- dangerous road crossing to village
- education - impact on primary school
- not enough research has been done on the damage to village communities/keeping local families in the area

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.

The site would result in many features such as street/site lighting, pavements, bus stops and possible road widening to provide access and this would be urbanisation of what is now open countryside.

I object to many of the sites as they all seem to be a 'bolt on' approach .Any new Gypsy/traveller sites should be long term projects and carefully planned in to new build schemes so that integration is well thought out and sustainable.

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

- Impact on local community and local village school
- Road safety issues/inadequate access
- Agricultural land
-Flood risk area
- Conservation/environmental impact
- safety and security

An area of flood risk alongside the busy dangerous 60 mph A429 trunk road which the traveller Community could not cross in safety to reach the village. Access and exit from the site are inadequate.There are no utilities on the site and no doctor in the village. It is therefore divorced from any settlement and could not be integrated into the landscape without harming the area. The school is already full having built 2 new classrooms recently.

No current provision of mains drainage infrastructure to site. Due to flooding issues and high water table it would not be sustainable to install non mains sewage options such a septic tank or STP. Any use of non mains drainage options could lead to point source pollution as the site historically floods.
The criteria" reflects the extent to which traditional Lifestyles can contribute" is not clear what industrial/ or commercial activity would be developed on this land to support this criteria. The criteria is ambiguous and fails to objectively address what employment use/ traditional lifelstyle the land would be utilised for.

No convenient access to GP - residents of Barford currently have to venture to neighbouring villages and towns for GP access. Already oversubscribed school. Public transport access via busy bypass road. Area prone to flooding as shown on EA flood map , no plans as to how site would be maintained within any allowable area to avoid flooding. No mains drainage infrastructure in place to support foul or surface water drainage .

Site access would be via busy bypass on which there have already been accidents, including a fatal accident at Barford junction . Utilities are already over burdened for Barford village due a dated drainage system . This is a greenfield site incorporating the Warwickshire avon, where deer, bats and other wildlife are present , most local planning applications requiring bat surveys. The development would be out of keeping with any surrounding scenery and have negative impact on views across fields from Barford to Fulbrook and Sherbourne. This development would place increased pressure on infrastructure and services.

Site access would be via busy bypass on which there have already been accidents, including a fatal accident at Barford junction . Utilities are already over burdened for Barford village due a dated drainage system . This is a greenfield site incorporating the Warwickshire avon, where deer, bats and other wildlife are present , most local planning applications requiring bat surveys. The development would be out of keeping with any surrounding scenery and have negative impact on views across fields from Barford to Fulbrook and Sherbourne. This development would place increased pressure on infrastructure and services

There is no convenient access to GP, residents of Barford currently have to venture to neighbouring villages an towns for GP access. Already oversubscribed local schools. Public transport access would be via busy bypass road. the area is prone to flooding as shown on EA flood map , there are no plans as to how site would be maintained within any allowable area to avoid flooding .

I write concerning the proposed gypsy sites.

I note two of the sites (GT12 & GT16) are based on Grade 2 land.

J & A Growers are the largest producers of seedling trees and hedging plants in the UK and we are in the process of expansion planning.

Owen Paterson, the secretary of state for Environment Food and Rural Affairs recently stated that the Government will make Tree Health and Biosecurity a high priority, this is what is driving our expansion plans, coupled with the market demanding UK produced material after the outbreak of Ash dieback (Chalara Fraxinea).

Our production requires high quality land (grade 1 or 2) and as can be seen on the map below there is very limited availability in the area and the removal of a substantial parcel in the area could severely limit any expansion plans.

cid:image003.png@01CE78B9.94DE1BB0

I am firstly extremely concerned that these sites on Grade 2 land would be considered as a potential Gypsy site but also given the Government Policy, I quote -

Government policy for England is set out in the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
published in March 2012 (paragraph 112).
Decisions rest with the relevant planning
authorities who should take into account the
economic and other benefits of the best and
most versatile agricultural land. Where
significant development of agricultural land is
demonstrated to be necessary, local planning
authorities should seek to use areas of poorer
quality land in preference to that of higher
quality.

I would like to take this opportunity to register my strong opposition to the traveller sites that have been proposed in south west Warwickshire.

I have been a resident of Warwickshire for the past 12 years, residing in Leamington, Kenilworth and now Warwick.

I believe that the Warwick District Council have agreed to a meeting and I think this is critical in order to share information, views and concerns both ways between the residents of Chase Meadow and the council.

The basis for my objection is based on the factors which I will outline below.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. One of the proposed sites (plot 11) is located on the border between a 30mph and 60mph limits. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
Hampton Road is a fast road and the concern of an additional turning so close to an existing turning on this type of road is a risk to the residents safety.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.
The proposed Hampton Road and Junc 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved.
Also, the Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending the races.


I would like to thank you for taking to the time to read and file my objection to these proposed traveller sites and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the forthcoming meeting

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

I wish to strongly object to the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites 12 and 16 within the village of Barford. This type of development is totally inappropriate for a small, quiet rural village and would substantially change the character of the village. For example it is highly likely that crime rates locally would rise and that policing costs would increase. It is also likely that the performance of the school, built up by hard work over many years would be negatively affected.The survey which identifies the need for 31 permanent pitches within the District seems unreliable.

I live on the Chase Meadow estate and my daughter attends Newburgh School, which even with it's double form entry is operating at full capacity for the current reception year and the September 2013 reception year. The Chase Meadow estate is dramatically increasing in size and new families are moving onto the estate swelling the population and putting more demand on the facilities available. It is my concern that the schools in the area will not be able to cope with a further increase in pupils outside the anticipated increase that has been expected from the new houses on the estate.
My family is registered with the local GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) as are many families on the estate and the availability for appointments is already restricted due to the sheer number of patients, this will only increase as the estate grows and my concern is that the surgery cannot cope with the number of additional patients that the traveller sites may house.
Warwick is a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually in conjunction with Stratford Upon Avon. The proposed Hampton Road and Junction 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved. The Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending events.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and file my objections and I would like a indication of what happens after the consultation period has expired.

I would like to lodge my objection to your proposed location of Travellers and Gypsy sites in the South West of Warwick.