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

see attached

see attached

* Site 16. This is a flood compensation area and is cannot be used for any form of development.
* Sites 12 and 16. These are within areas which have been identified by The Environment agency of having significant flood risk
* Sites 12 and 16. Water Voles have been reported in areas immediately adjacent to these sites. Water Voles are a legally protected species.
* Sites 12 and 16. There are inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.
* Sites 6 and 9. These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gasses and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 10 and 20. Both are adjacent to historic landfills which, though closed, may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.
* Sites 6 and 9. Both sit immediately approximate to the Asps which WDC decided after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that the site should remain open due to its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park, The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 f or the same reasons.
* Sites 6 and 9. There have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds to these 2 sites and beyond.
* Sites 12 and 16. Vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access to the sites is entirely inadequate.
* Sites 5, 6,9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. Vehicle access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.
* Sites 5,6,9,10,12,15,16,17,18 and 20. The sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of these sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors etc) on foot or bike via a pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the locak highway infrastructure and is unsustainable.
* Sites 5,6,9,12,16 and 20. Development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16. Development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a 'Secondary Service Village' and its likely requirement to meet 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20. WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPS1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and Caravan sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of the development.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 16 and 20. The development of all these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. These are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
* Availability. Only 3 if the sites listed are available, namely 15, 17 an 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.
* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would better enable integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.
* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a suitable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.
* Ecology and Environment. All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.
* WDC should also consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not swallowed up by Warwick and Leamington over time.


Mark Mitchell
Barford Resident

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07802 470896
Email: mark.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethinic origin: White British
Age: 45 - 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, GT12, GT15, GT16, GT17, GT18, GT20.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposal of all these sites for the reasons stated below. I have based my objections on the suitability and sustainability criteria used in the WDC consultation document.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development. No one from WDC can have surveyed this possible location ahead of consultation.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. Extensive flooding has taken place in both sites earlier this year.


* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.


* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

My general comments relating to ALL of the above sites are:

* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable. A compulsory purchase order would be extremely lengthy, costly and unviable compared to other options.

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington where 12,300 houses are proposed. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

The consultation document published by WDC June 2013 misrepresents proposed size and visual impact of a completed site! Pictures used on page 3 and page 4 are from holiday caravan sites. The proposal of each pitch being 500 sqm each in size is omitted from the document and is misleading. Approved, licenced Gypsy and Traveller sites do not look like that in WDC 's consultation document.

Can you pleased confirm receipt of this response for my records.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable.

* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major 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 will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

* Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for Gypsies and Travellers during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 in the Revised Development Strategy for the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

see-attached

Dear Sirs

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07970 058316
Email: jennifersheard@aol.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 54
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper

Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.

I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT05, GT06, GT09, GT10, GT12, GT15, GT16, GT17, GT18, GT20.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposal of all these sites for the reasons stated below. I have based my objections on the suitability and sustainability criteria used in the WDC consultation document.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - vehicular access to these sites is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from these sites to the highways network would not be safe.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - the sites are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) on foot or on bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes, or by bus. The only means of accessibility is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure and is unsustainable.


* Sites 6 and 9 - These sites are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Site 16 - is actually the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is unsuitable for any form of development. No one from WDC can have surveyed this possible location ahead of consultation.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

* Sites 12 and 16 - sit within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. Extensive flooding has taken place in both sites earlier this year.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - the development of all of these sites could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity of the sites.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16 - development would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and it's likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.

* Sites 12 and 16 - a number of residents have reported the existence of water voles in and immediately adjacent to these sites. Water voles are, of course, now a legally protected species.

* Sites 6 and 9 - sit immediately approximate to the Asps which Warwick District Council decided, after further research regarding the landscape and transport impact of development, that site should remain open due its value as a backdrop to the historic Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy, therefore, excludes the Asps and should also exclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reasons.

* Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sightings on this land and there is a population of deer that roam freely across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites 10 and 20 - These sites are situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases are unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

* Sites 5, 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites 12 and 16 - vehicular access to these sites is from the A429 trunk road which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since its opening, including a fatality. The existing access into the sites is entirely inadequate.


* Sites 12 and 16 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village.

My general comments relating to ALL of the above sites are:

* WDC should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major 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 will provide facilities such as a school, a doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

* Ecology and Environment - all of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.

* WDC should consider allocating an area of land to the south of Warwick and Leamington including The Asps and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to provide a 'buffer' to the proposed developments to the south of Warwick and Leamington and/or to extend the proposed Bishops Tachbrook Country Park as far as the Banbury Road near to Warwick Castle Park. This would ensure the villages in the south of the District retain their identity and are not 'swallowed up' by Warwick and Leamington over time.

* Availability - only 3 of the sites listed are available, namely sites 15, 17 and 18. By definition the remaining sites are not deliverable. A compulsory purchase order would be extremely lengthy, costly and unviable compared to other options.

* WDC should revisit its Greenbelt Policy and release sites to the north of Warwick and Leamington which would reduce the pressure to allocate land for all forms of development during the new Local Plan period to the south of the District.

* WDC should have identified brownfield sites within the existing urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington for Gypsies and Travellers. These sites would be more suitable and sustainable, and would enable better integration in to the local community. Despite such sites existing, they are all being proposed for redevelopment for more valuable uses.


The consultation document published by WDC June 2013 misrepresents proposed size and visual impact of a completed site! Pictures used on page 3 and page 4 are from holiday caravan sites. The proposal of each pitch being 500 sqm each in size is omitted from the document and is misleading. Approved, licenced Gypsy and Traveller sites do not look like that in WDC's consultation document.

Dear Sirs

Revised Development Strategy Response

Firstly may I apologise for not submitting an online consultation form. The process took longer than expected with multiple problems online hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624224 / 07801 787891
Email: mikesheard6@gmail.com
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Male
Ethnic origin: White British
Age: 56
Method of learning about consultation: newspaper


Part B

Commenting on the Revised Development Strategy.

In response to: Southern Sites: Sites South of Warwick & Whitnash. Map 3, pages 32 & 32.

I would like to OBJECT to the proposed development of approximately 3,500 houses in this area. The key reasons for objection are:

The volume and number of properties is disproportionate to the local road infrastructure in and around Leamington and Warwick. There is no evidence to support the sustainability of road junctions and traffic hours in the local area without severe congestion and impact on the public transport system.

The new proposals make no provision for allocation of Gypsy and Traveller sites into these developments. Any new housing area should seek to include ALL Gypsy and Traveller sites into those new developments so that they offer better quality of environment, local services and integration into community. Such schemes have been




successfully implemented near Watford and Milton Keynes areas. This would ensure better forward planning of proposed G&T sites with land developers rather than splitting G&T sites up and around the county.

There is little evidence to support the production of the total overall requirement of over 12,000 houses in the overall Local Plan.

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

I am responding as a resident in Warwick District.

I trust that this response will suffice, despite the response forms suggesting a separate response is necessary for each proposed site.

1 - Strategic / Site-wide comments

a - Required Pitch Numbers
I remain highly sceptical and unconvinced by your evidence base for the required number of permanent pitches in WDC. The timing of the surveys was in the summer during the travelling season (the population in WDC at that time was not necessarily representative). The surveys were carried out by members of the travelling community on the travelling community. I suggest House builders would not be asked to interview house builders about how many houses they would like to build. I remain unconvinced that the Salford report provides a robust evidence base that fits with a national, logical and coordinated pattern of provision. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction against a previous inspector's findings. The massive shift from previous figures leaves me with no faith whatsoever in these figures.

b - Prematurity of the Consultation
The fact that sites are included in the consultation that quite clearly do not meet WDC's own criteria for selection suggests one of two things. Either officers are incapable of applying a simple set of criteria to sieve sites to rule out the totally inappropriate or those that do not meet the minimum requirements (which I am sure is not true), or the first sieve / down-selection has not yet been carried out in which case, the consultation is premature and is causing a huge amount of angst and worry unnecessarily.

c - Green Belt
I think it is unfortunate that the Local Plan is suggesting so much development south of Leamington and Warwick. WDC is failing a large number of its residents by not challenging the out-dated Green Belt designation to the north. It dates from a time when there was far less development pressure and is not fit for purpose today as a policy of restraint. The "exceptional circumstances" are the unprecedented development pressure on the district at the moment. I urge the council to review the green belt boundaries to the north of our district. You will find plenty of sites ripe for development without harming the aims and objectives of this regional green belt. To my mind by simply pushing all development to the south, WDC is delivering banal and crass spatial planning and failing in its duties to future generations.

2 - Site-Specific Comments.

GT6 - A prominent site occupying open countryside and adjoining the Castle Park. The site acts as an open buffer between possible new housing development along Banbury Road and land to the south and west. The site is excluded from the Local Plan for residential development due to its openness. The same logic holds for any built development including travellers and Gypsies. Development would have an adverse impact on the rural character by introducing urbanising influences and probable decrease in the condition of the landscape.
The site is on an historic tip.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT9 - This site occupies a prominent, elevated and sloping site. The visual influence of development on this site would be widespread. The site would have a distinct urbanising effect. This is to all intents and purposes open countryside and for any other development would not be considered. Why is it even considered here? Development would cause distinct harm to the character of the area, it is isolated from services, would impact on the setting of Greys Mallory.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT12 - I really struggle with this site and how it comes to be included in the consultation. It occupies open countryside on the iconic river floodplain of the River Avon. It comprises a distinctive meander in the one landscape feature that defines the Warwickshire Countryside. The site is remote enough from settlements to be perceived as urbanisation in open countryside. Access to the site if off the A429 on a sweeping 60mph stretch. Since the (welcomed) construction of the bypass, there have been a number of accidents involving vehicles joining and leaving the road including one very unfortunate recent fatality. In addition, everyone who uses the junctions into Barford has witnessed or been involved in countless near misses. The accidents will keep on coming. We are not particularly well served by public transport, nor doctors in the village. Our school is full to bursting. It is a small community school that excels for our children. A transient, part time element would not be beneficial.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped. In particular, road safety and landscape character.

GT 16 - I refer to my prematurity point above. Inclusion of this site in a public consultation seriously undermines the credibility of WDC. It brings into doubt the seriousness of the other sites or the intellectual rigour with which this process is being carried out....This site is a balancing pond / flood compensation feature. Enough said.

After all that, I appreciate that this is a very difficult exercise. I hope the right answer prevails

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

see attached

see-attached

see attached

See attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached