GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale

As you will know, the travellers are applying for retrospective planning and at all stages the courts and planning department have rejected their proposal. Therefore how can Warwickshire District Council seriously consider that this would be a suitable site. I feel sorry for the people who live opposite this site as their house has been blighted and their rights have not been protected by the District council who now are proposing to make this an official travellers site. The land at GT13 always floods during the winter and effectively holds up the water when large amounts of rain occurs. If a site is made permanent, this water will run off immediately and swamp the existing drainage available in the area and cause greater flooding problems elsewhere. The land was never farmed during the winter as it was always saturated and holds large amounts of surface water. It effectively works the same way as a flood plain for a river and as far as I am aware, building on flood plains should be avoided. For this reason, I am objecting to this plot of land being used as a Gypsy and Traveller Site.

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

Adverse impact on: 1. Green belt 2. Rural character 3. Highway 5. Schools and services 6. Drainage, utilities and infrastructure 7. Trees and vegetation.

The site has been rejected at appeal and should not be considered a potential site for gypsies and travellers.

It is a fact that there are plenty of Caravan and camping sites in Warwickshire already authorised to take Touring and Static vans (Stratford upon Avon and Warwick Racecourse being just two of several in Warwickshire). If people want to stay in Warwickshire for 1 nights or even several months (or on a residential basis) there are established Caravan and Camping sites (with all of the facilities named on your document e..g toilets, showers, car parking etc) that are already set up for exactly that purpose. There are already laws in place to prevent owners of these sites turning people away on grounds of ethnicity if that was a reason for thinking these sites were not suitable. There are also many more pitches than the 30+ you are seeking to accommodate.

With regards to the two sites referred to in your document.

The current site on Kites Nest Lane is in breach of planning law and was occupied in very bad faith (Bank Holiday weekend when the planning office was shut etc). To even suggest legalising it by including it in the consultation document sends a terrible message to the residents of that site and anyone else thinking that way to get their own way is to do something illegal and then resist the law until such time as the law changes to suit them.

Similarly, the site near the Shell Garage in Hatton has been breaching the law for years with Caravans being occupied on that site in spite of it not being a licensed camping ground. To legalise this send a similarly bad message.

I am very disappointed in your approach which in my opinion gives support to those carrying out illegal activities.

I have read the proposed plans for gypsy travellers sites on Kites Nest Lane GT13 and for GT19 opposite the Shell Garage.
We strongly object to both proposed sites.
The Kites Nest Lane destruction of Green Belt Land has gone on beyond belief , flouting planning laws, ignoring the law and destroying Green belt land. It is entirely the worst location with little access, surrounded by Green Belt .

The G19 site would destroy more countryside, with already appalling and dangerous road conditions on the main road bordering it would destroy the land and become an eyesore and wholly inappropriate introduction to encouraging visitors and tourists to Warwick.

I wish to strongly object to both sites.

One of the proposed sites on the list for consideration is:
Kites Nest Lane,
Hatton,
Warwick
May I firstly ask why this site is deemed suitable for consideration?
It is a field that used to contain horses and the then owner was asked to remove the horses as the field was and is susceptible to flooding. The proposed site is in an established green belt area and is of outstanding natural beauty. Enjoyed by large numbers of walkers, cyclists and public in general. This site has already been subject to planning applications and two appeals, one of which resulted in a planning refusal.
On these grounds I absolutely object to the site appearing on the list of land being considered for traveller occupation. It is patently not suitable for the reasons outlined.
I object totally against the proposal for Kites Nest Lane, Hatton as a traveller site.

We are supporters of FRoG. We want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is perverse given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been unequivocally refused by the Planning Committee (each time in line with the Council's officers' recommendation). Both those planning decisions have been appealed and both have been resisted by WDC.
The first of those appeals was - following scrutiny at an expensive 7 day long Public Inquiry - unambiguously and entirely refused by the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The second appeal is currently being opposed by the Council.
The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.
Tens of thousands of pounds of local council taxpayers' money has been and is being spent in resisting what has already been determined to be an attempt at wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Our concern is exacerbated by our understanding that potential sites put forward by the local parish council to the Council on 8th April 2013 have not been included as options. I understand that the reasoning for the omissions include because sites have previously been identified as "a potential housing site in the Local Plan", and because sites are "promoted for residential use through the Local Plan and [are] too close to the urban area". It does not appear to me that these reasons are sufficient to justify the sites being excluded as options, particularly when one as obviously inappropriate as Kites Nest Lane is included as an option.
We look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper.

Dear Mr Elliott,

We write with reference to the consultation for gypsy and traveller sites currently taking place.

We have considered the potential sites that have been put forward by the Council. We are extremely concerned by the inclusion of Kite's Nest Lane as a possible site (GT13). AS you are undoubtedly aware, this site has been the subject of two planning applications for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. WDC have now decided twice that development of this site is inappropriate. The Secretary of State has also deemed it unsuitable for any form of development of this kind; even one Gypsy pitch would be inappropriate.

This site is in Green Belt: it is therefore inappropriate development. The site has been found not to be in keeping with its surroundings, which is open countryside. It is down a narrow country lane, with no footpaths or easy access to a main road network. These, and many other reasons, which have been discussed in detail at two Planning Inquiries, make it completely unsuitable. Of equal concern, however, is the fact that this site has been included at all. Significant resource has been expended by WDC already and the site has now, on two separate occasions, been found to be unsuitable. It is clear to us, therefore, that the Kites Nest Lane site should not be under consideration at all and we suggest it is withdrawn immediately and object in the strongest terms to any form of development there.

We believe that WDC should be looking outside of the Green Belt for all of its sites. However, we understand that a large part of the District is Green Belt. If it is not possible to identify enough sites outside of the Green Belt, we would suggest using Green Belt sites which have already had buildings on them. An example of this given in the consultation would be the Oaklands Farm site (GT19).

We have commented on the sites with which we are familiar and given reasons as to why we feel these would be suitable below.

GT15: This site is close to amenities and could easily be landscaped to integrate into its surroundings. It would be possible to provide appropriate access to the site.

GT17 and GT18: Taken together these two sites would provide a substantial number of pitches. This land has previously had buildings on it for many years and could easily be converted to providing Gypsy pitches without burdening Warwickshire Green Belt with additional development. They have good access to the main road network, which we believe is a requirement of the Gypsies and Travellers. Utilities will already be set up and these sites are close to Warwick town for access to services. Several houses lie along the A46 so clearly there would be no noise issues and the current design of the land means there is plenty of room for pulling on to and off the sites (there may even be slip roads already in place).

GT20: This site would provide excellent access to main roads and would be large enough to provide substantial integration of a Gypsy site into the landscape. A significant number of pitches could be created here, allowing Gypsies the chance to live in their extremely large family groups, as they often wish to.

Despite the positive features of these four sites, we still feel that land outside of the Green Belt should be the focus of this search. WDC has stated previously that any Gypsy Site allocations it makes do not necessarily have to be in Green Belt and we would urge WDC to carefully consider its position with regards to protecting the Warwickshire Green Belt. Indeed, the Secretary of State has recently announced his intentions to further protect Green Belt from Gypsy and Traveller developments and WDC should also be looking to safeguard its Green Belt from any kind of development.

We can confirm that this as our formal response to the consultation, and trust that WDC will consider this as appropriate.

I am emailing in response to the Options for Consultation document published as part of the ongoing Local Plan process. Specifically to object in the strongest possible terms to the inclusion of Kites Nest Lane, Beausale (GT13) as an Option.

WDC has already decided twice - in response to applications for planning permission from various of the site occupants - that KNL is not a potential site. A great deal of time and council taxpayers' money has been spent over the past 3+ years in upholding that decision, based as it was on KNL being in the Green Belt and for all the reasons set out so clearly in the 2011 Public Inquiry Appeal decision. The suggestion now that KNL might be an Option is uterly illogical and flies in the face of everything that has gone before.

I do not propose to repeat all the given reasons. They include the substantial and ongoing harm to the GB caused by the unauthorised development to date; damage to the character and appearance of the attractive local countryside; the inability to landscape the site; the lack of any very special circumstances evidenced by the occupants; and domination of the local settled community.

I have seen the Government's recent pronouncements reiterating the need to protect the GB, and am sure that WDC will have due regard to them. The Options clearly envisage that G&T sites can be provided by WDC in non GB land. KNL should therefore be removed as a possible Option without any further delay.

Dear Warwick DC Planning

I strongly object to the proposed development of the Kites Nest Lane site for permanent use by gypsies and travellers. I emailed my objection in January 2013 and my opinions are the same as then:

'I am completely opposed to this application for retrospective planning permission at Kites Nest Lane, Beausale, Warwick. This site is a green field site and should therefore not be developed. Since the arrival of the applicants this site has become an unsavoury eyesore and a blight on our community and environment.'

I also wish to express my strong objection to the proposed development of the site on the land adjacent to the Shell Petrol filling station on the Birmingham Road for the same reasons. I am aware that this is not a green field site at present however its use is commensurate with its rural location. The address for the Birmingham Road site is Budbrooke however this land is located opposite Hatton Park, before the first turning into the development.

Hatton Park and the properties on the Birmingham Road are owner occupied,they are well maintained and this is considered a very good area to live. If gypsies and travellers were permitted to live so close to our properties this would have a detrimental affect on property prices and the appeal of the area. It would not be possible to drive up the Birmingham Road towards Hatton Park without passing a travellers' site.

There is already pressure on the Birmingham Road and any new residents, travellers or otherwise, would only increase this pressure. There is no local GP practice or school.

Gypsies and travellers have no connection with this area and should not be permitted to live on these sites either now or in the future.

I am extremely dismayed that there has been another appeal allowed on the Kites Nest Lane site and trust the council will listen to Warwickshire residents who pay their taxes and take part in elections. Please listen and preserve the beautiful area that is Hatton Park and the environs.

Dear Sirs,

I would like to object to the proposed allocation of site 'G13 Kites Nest Lane Beausale' as a site for gypsies and travellers for the following reasons:

- The development of this site would be inappropriate and harmful development in the Green Belt. It is an urbanising development, clearly incongruous in this area, that would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt's openness and encroach into beautiful countryside.
- There would be harm to the visual amenity of this part of the Green Belt. The experience of walking and cycling the surrounding footpath and bridleway network would be adversely effected as a result of clear views experienced of an urban development through the patchy hedgerows.
- Planning Permission has already been refused by the Secretary of State for development on this site for some of the above reasons. The Council has spent significant time and public money enforcing against the unauthorised occupation of the site. To allocate the site now would, in my view, seriously harm the integrity of the planning system and the Council.
- A recent ministerial statement from local government minister Brandon Lewis set out the Secretary of State's view that "the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development in the green belt". It is therefore clear that Green Belt protection is of paramount importance to the Government and should be a weighty consideration to justify not allocating this Green Belt site for gypsy/traveller development.
- The Government's aim for traveller sites (See national policy for traveller sites) include that plan making and decision taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development.
- Government policy is also to reduce tensions between the settled community and traveller communities in plan making and decision taking. The unauthorised way this site was occupied, and continues to be occupied in breach of planning rules, increases tensions between communities and reduces the sustainability of the site, as acknowledged by the Secretary of State in the 2011 appeal decision.

In conclusion, I hope that the Council will be consistent in resisting the development of this site and afford great importance to protecting this attractive Green Belt location from substantial harm.

Revised Development Strategy
1. The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is in our view to be without foundation. A detailed and authoritative report produced by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests the likely requirement is 5,400 homes, less than half the WDC estimate. The WDC need to re-consider their estimate taking into account the homes required in neighbouring authorities (Coventry; Rugby & Stratford) and rationalise the estimate to be sure there is no duplication of need. Even the proposed 5,400 homes will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area which will result in unacceptable traffic congestion and consequent air pollution which is reportedly already illegal in Warwick.
2. Within the WDC estimate, is a figure of 100-150 new homes in Hampton Magna. The existing amenities there are already overstretched and to add an additional 300 people - more than double the population of Hampton-on-the-Hill - will mean they will be unable to cope. Also the single road through the two villages is already used as a 'rat run' by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway Railway Station and to the M40 Motorway. Indeed more and urgent attention needs to be given to improving the existing transport infrastructure to accommodate the current population.
3. With an estimate of 5,400 homes, no development needs to take place in the villages mentioned in the Plan thereby protecting the Green Belt and the Rural nature of the district which makes it the pleasant place in which to live.
4. We urge the WDC to heed the concerns expressed in the letter from our MP. - Mr Chris White - to Cllr Doody dated 24th June 2013 in which he expresses his concern about the housing estimate and urges the WDC to 'respect the views of local residents.'

Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
The need to provide sites for Gypsies & Travellers has long been ignored by the WDC leading to the reason often given by the travelling community for the illegal occupation of some sites. The requirement is for 31 permanent pitches and 12 transit pitches. Now there are twenty proposed sites amounting to 206 pitches in all which seem to have been selected in a somewhat haphazard manner. We realise that only one or two sites will be selected from the twenty suggested but the number and location of so many sites has caused unnecessary alarm among residents. For example, there are six sites within two miles of Hampton-on-the-Hill.
Site GT 13 at Kites Nest Lane has been the subject of an Inquiry with a decision due in October 2013. How can it be considered a viable site? Site GT 20 is the site of Morrison's compound when the A 46 flyover/M 40 modifications were being constructed during 2009/11. On completion of that work it was offered as a possible site for the travelling community and turned down by the WDC as unsuitable; being too distant from the amenities required by them. How then can it now be regarded as a viable site?
Instead of proposing the twenty sites, why not instead consider housing the 31 pitches on the fringes of the other larger proposed housing developments. In this way the travelling community will have convenient access to the amenities they require.

We are sure you'd like to know what's been happening at the Public Inquiry. Firstly, thank you to everyone who was able to spare some time to support the FRoG team. The constant flow of coffee and moral support was really appreciated.
As explained below, simply by replying to this email you can still make a difference!

The Inquiry
The inquiry finished on Thursday afternoon. We don't think we learned much new. Our planning consultant and barrister did a fantastic job convincingly arguing that the Appeal should be dismissed for all the reasons the last Appeal was unsuccessful. Working closely with the council, we demonstrated that the proposed development scheme simply cannot work. The Council's barrister did a terrific job: a master class in cross-examination. We believe that our evidence has cast yet further doubt in the Inspector's mind about the reliability of the travellers' evidence as to their personal circumstances.
The Inspector was unhappy about the council's continuing failure to provide traveller sites (which is something that they are required to do) and the appellant's agent made much of the fact that Kites Nest Lane is included in the council's current consultation list of possible sites. That Kites Nest Lane is in the list seems completely perverse in all circumstances. Many of you have already objected to its inclusion, and we are very grateful to you for this, however it is important that each of us objects to Warwick District Council as soon as possible. We hope that if enough of us object the council may change the Options Paper in time to influence the Planning Inspector's decision.
So ...please object to the council by replying to this email...
You can object by simply "Reply All" to this email, giving your name and address. This will send an email to us and Sue Gallagher (but nobody else). Sue is our tremendously supportive local councillor and she will be able to use your "vote" to lobby WDC to help her argue that the inclusion of the Kites Nest Lane site in the council list should be investigated. Any comments you make she can add to her arguments, too. If you are writing on behalf of more than one person (a family or social group), please say that, too.
Thank you again to those of you who contributed to FRoG's fighting fund; rest assured that the funds we raised this time were again well spent.
We don't expect a decision for a number of weeks/ months: probably not before the autumn. We will continue to keep you updated with any new developments. Meanwhile, please let us know if you'd like any further information at this stage.
Thank you for your continued support- and please do lodge your dissatisfaction that Kites Nest Lane is included in the consultation document at all!

We were alarmed to hear thatthe appellant's agent has recently written to the Planning Inspectorate to reiterate his assertion that the site should be granted permission because it is included in the consultation document.

What on earth were WDC thinking of when they included Kites Nest Lane as a potential site in the consultation document? We were told by a representative of WDC that a number of potential sites were put forward by local residents but deemed to be unsuitable and did not make it onto the list. How therefore did Kites Nest Lane manage to get included? So, now we have this ridiculous latest situation on our hands.

We object on the basis that the travellers have applied the ratchet effect to apply duress and undue influence on the council in respect of the travellers illegal settlement.

The site has been included on the basis of the cynical and opportunistic slight of hand on the part of the travellers who own the site.

If this is to be allowed, what is there to prevent anybody form buying land, using it illegally and then cyncially including it in the due legal process to perfect their original illegality?

The council have identified other sites that are more suitable than the desecrated wildlife area of Kites Nest, which should be reinstated as an area of natural rural attractiveness.

On a similar vein, it is interesting to note that on the current plan, there are no travellers sites mooted for Kenilworth. May one know the reasons for this please?

Dr Penny-Anne Cullen and Dr Richard Hickman, 6 lower farm, brownley green lane, hatton, nr warwick, cv35 7er
----- Original Message -----
From: FROG (Friends of the Greenbelt)
To: frog3004@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Sue Gallagher
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: Update - 21 June

Good morning all,

The Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that the Secretary of State will issue his decision on or before 22 October 2013. We shall of course let you know when we hear more.

Thank you to all of those of you who have written to Mr Elliott and Councillor Gallagher noting your concerns that WDC has inappropriately included Kites Nest Lane in its consultation document. These concerns are well placed: the appellant's agent has recently written to the Planning Inspectorate to reiterate his assertion that the site should be granted permission because it is included in the consultation document.

If you wish to lodge your concern that the site should not have been included in the consultation process but have not yet had a chance to do so, please simply "Reply to all" (your email will only come to us and Councillor Gallagher) stating your name, address, how many residents you represent and any other comments that you wish to make.

Finally, we have been delighted to receive some generous cash donations from existing and new supporters, all contributions remain very well received! We have also heard the requests for a repeat of the Curried Frog evening ...

see attached

see attached

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find below my various representations with regard to the proposed site options.

In line with the report I wish to make representations on a number of points as detailed below.

1. Introduction

No comment

2. Background

No comment

3. Who are Gypsies and Travellers?

No comment

4. What are the Issues?

No comment

5. Policy Background

SUPPORT

National policy is correct in advocating that (1) local planning authorities work together to identify sites and (2) that decision-taking protects Green Belt from inappropriate development and makes enforcement more effective.

On Point (1) it is therefore extremely worrying that Warwick District Council (WDC) is no longer working with other authorities to consider plans on a cross-authority basis, which it has a duty to do under the 2011 Localism Act. On point (2) WDC makes no distinction between Green Belt and non-Green Belt sites in its policy criteria so again contradicts national policy.

6. Evidence Base

No comment

7. Local Plan Requirements

OBJECT

The policy criteria listed by WDC are sensible.

However they omit crucial aspects of national guidance including (1) that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development and (2) sites must be in appropriate locations. Why?

There is also the fact that WDC is no longer working on a cross-authority basis to provide sites. Again, why when much of WDC is covered by Green Belt (80%)? Surely by definition travellers are nomadic and the requirement for pitches should not be restricted to Warwick District?

8. Identification of Potential Sites

OBJECT

Section 8.1 is inadequate. WDC should list all sites within it's ownership and explain why it considers each site to be unacceptable.

Section 8.3, in which WDC is seeking to identify sites itself is a total dereliction of its duty under the 2011 Localism Act. WDC contains a high proportion of Green Belt and the Council should be looking to share supply of sites in appropriate locations with other authorities.

Site listing criteria should distinguish first whether locations are appropriate according to national and local planning policy. This is a planning document and land ownership (and willingness to sell) should not be a concern due to CPO powers.

9. Sites for consideration and comment
10. Table of Sites

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre, Siskin Drive

No Comment

GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way at its junction with the B425

No comment

GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm

No comment

GT04 Land at Harbury Lane, Fosse Way

No comment

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm

No comment

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm

No comment

GT07 Land at Stoneleigh Road

No comment

GT08 Depot to the west side of Cubbington Hill Farm

No comment

GT09 Land to the north east of M40

No comment

GT10 Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

No comment

GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road

No comment

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

No comment

GT13 Kites Nest Lane, Beausale

OBJECT

Kites Nest Lane, Beausale is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is a greenfield site in the open countryside within the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Adopting it as a possible site would legitimise the long-running unauthorised applications to impose this illegal use at this site. WDC has rightly objected to such applications (although achieved nothing in removing the illegal settlement) and allowing development through this process would set an extremely damaging precedent in this and other areas that will attract significant public disapproval. National policy supports effective enforcement against unauthorised developments.

3. Access to local services is limited.

4. Its rural location means that this use cannot be integrated in the landscape without harming the character and amenity of the area in terms of aesthetic appearance and noise.

GT14 Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey

No comment

GT15 Land east of Europa Way

No comment

GT16 Land to north of Westham Lane and west of Wellesbourne Road, Barford (small site)

No comment

GT17 Service area west of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT18 Service area east of A46 Old Budbrooke Way

No comment

GT19 Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm

OBJECT

Land at Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road is totally inappropriate as a site for this purpose because:

1. It is in the Green Belt and any use for this purpose (or residential etc) is inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework protects the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

2. Access to the road network is not safe - Birmingham Road is 2-way and heavily congested, particularly during peak times. There was a fatal traffic accident immediately outside the proposed site in 2010.

3. It is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal running locally between Warwick and Hatton offering views of Warwick Castle and St Nicholas Church.

As stated on numerous websites including Hatton Parish Council, the Canal & River Trust and Enjoy Warwick, (to name but a few), Hatton is home to one of the most picturesque spots on the Grand Union Canal.

The famous Hatton Flights, otherwise known as "The Stairway to Heaven" contains 21 locks in less than two miles, raising or dropping the Grand Union Canal by 146.5 feet. They are an excellent example of original and recent canal engineering providing two hundred years of waterways history at a key location on the Grand Union canal.

As part of a Heritage Lottery Funded Working Boats Project, a pair of restored working boats that once worked this route are moored on the Hatton Flights. A recent Heritage Lottery funded project has also made some of the local history available to visitors through information panels, leaflets, a family wildlife trail along the Hatton Flights, education packs and picnic benches.

This is a very popular towpath for boaters, walkers, runners and cyclists alike whose amenity will be greatly impacted by the occupation/development of this site.

Its location will further impact on the visual amenity of the Grand Union Canal.

4. The site may be prone to flooding due to its location next to a water network.

GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40

No comment

Do you have any other suggestions for land within this district that you think would be suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site?

No comment

I look forward to receiving your comments and trust that the Council will make a well informed and well researched decision when it comes to sites to be considered in greater detail.

Dear Development Policy Manager or to whomever it may concern,

Ref. Proposed Gypsy & Traveller sites near Harbury (GT03, GT04)

I have been studying the proposal for the Local plan and draft policy for the criteria to assess traveller site suitability for Warwick District. The document provides a reasoned view and some direction on how the process will proceed.

I would however like to confirm my objection to the plans for the proposed sites near the Fosse Way and Harbury lane (GT03, GT04).

I regularly use this route and there are several compelling reasons why in my opinion the sites are not suitable. These include:

- Road safety. The crossroads at Harbury lane and the Fosse way is already a high risk junction for traffic accidents. Both roads are busy during the day, but especially so at peak hours. There are no paths and the thought of individuals and potentially children near these roads is of serious concern and will potentially raise risks further.
- There is limited access to a GP surgery, schools or public transport.
- The site is close to both Chesterton Windmill and the site of an old roman town. As important natural and historic features (photos are often taken facing west from the windmill) the sites would seem unsuitable.

In summary I do not believe these proposed sites are suitable as outlined above and I object to these sites on this basis.

I would appreciate it if could confirm receipt of this email and my objection. Many thanks.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for Oaklands Farm to a Permanent Gypsy Site, Kites Nest and other local planning on the Birmingham Road are ; they are as follows:

1: The current owner & his father before him have applied for change of use/ building of small residential houses for many years & only recently been granted planning permission for 1 home & outbuilding. As a council you have objected due to the land accessing a country lane & the busy Birmingham Rd, along with other objections which are a matter or record. Proof of the dangers of this road are public knowledge with many deaths and serious injuries; which has seen yet again been brought to our attention the last few weeks with RTA's one of which requiring the Air Ambulance to attend!

2: A4177 Birmingham Rd is the main road between Warwick and the second city Birmingham this handles not only increased local traffic but Warwick Towns lifeline of visitors to its historic town and famous canal side. Putting a gypsy site there would intimidate people using the canal, it's walkways; this has already happened at the illegal Kites Nest Site where people no longer feel safe to walk or take their dogs due to the attitude of the illegal residents and their aggressive dogs. Does Warwick council really want to deprive the local shops, businesses and town folks of their incomes and feeling safe in their surroundings and driving potential much needed visitors away?

3: There is also the increase of pollution whether from activities that would take place on such a site or motor vehicles; our community should be protected from this. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. This not only takes it toll on our health but also the structure of our historic buildings.

4: The 1993 Local Plan along with the inspectors report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre; and yet over a decade on we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect on this development, despite funding from the developer.

5: The local infrastructure cannot cope wether it being our local GP's, Hospital, Schools or Emergency Services; these should be paramount to being brought in line for the existing residents before adding to our community. These plans should be in place prior to any others for additional housing.

6: We should be looking at using empty properties, factories and building sites before using our treasured green belt areas for future housing; one can only presume it is easier and less costly for a developer to clear existing neglected housing and sites; they just want to make as much profit as they can in the shortest of time regardless of the local people and their feelings or safety.

7: As much as you do not consider the value of people's properties to be important in your proposals, it has shown in other areas that house prices can fall by up to 40% where gypsy sites, illegal or otherwise are. As a home owner and having worked for everything I own, paid taxes national insurance etc I feel having contributed into the system along with other hardworking taxpayers in our area that our home is our castle and should not have its value diminished by these sites.

8: We should therefore not have inflicted upon us non contributing, untidy and unruly people living within our community as the gypsy site proposals you as a council have put forward. Kites Nest illegal site has shown no respect to the locals or yourselves as councillors as they have blatantly disregarded the law and cost thousands of pounds opposing over the last three years!!! It is beyond belief that you now consider giving into this and even thinking of having a proposed additional site on the busy Birmingham Road on Oaklands Farm area.

9: Putting gypsy sites in and around our village would hamper any future development of housing as people would not be prepared to purchase homes with these sites in place. This is surely being very short sighted as a council representing our community.

Dear Sir or Madam,

1. I write to object to the proposals to allocate sites for Gypsies and Travellers set out in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options document (June 2013). In particular options GT19 (land adjacent to Shell Petrol Filling Station, Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Warwick) and GT14 (Kite's Nest Lane Beausale).

2. The Preferred Option (PO7) to help meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers set out in Warwick District Council's Local Plan Preferred Options document (May 2012) sets out the criteria to be used to bring forward sites for Gypsies and Travellers:

* Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport;
* Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding;
* Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site;
* Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance;
* Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc);
* Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment; and,
* Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the Area.

3. Para 8.5 of the Sites for Gypsies and Travellers document (June 2013) states ..."The Council has considered where the most sustainable sites for this purpose would be given the criteria listed". However, no evidence that the sites satisfactorily meet these criteria is given. I do not consider, therefore, that this is a fair, transparent and accessible consultation.

4. I do not consider that the options offer convenient access to a GP's surgery, school nor public transport and I have concerns over the safe access to the road network particularly in relation to option GT19 given the additional trips and type of trips/movements that would be generated by this option.

5. Policy B: Planning for Traveller Sites, para 11(f) of Planning Policy for Traveller sites (March 2012) states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally and that Local Planning Authorities should, ensure that their policies avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

6. Warwickshire is experiencing a significant growth in pupil numbers and demand for places is currently outweighing availability. Notably, in 2012, there was a consultation on proposals to increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) of The Ferncumbe CE Primary School from and to re-allocate the Hatton Park development across the priority areas for Budbrooke Primary School and The Ferncumbe CE primary School to help the Local Authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of places. Without these changes, children from the Hatton Park development could have to travel some considerable distance to secure a school place and a large number of 'in-area' children will be unable to secure admission to their priority school.

7. I consider that the options will, therefore, place undue pressure on local infrastructure and services - particularly local schools and the road network and particularly when there is an additional 70-90 additional dwellings on Hatton Park proposed in Warwick District Council's Revised Development Strategy (June 2013).

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

I would like to register my objection to the Warwickshire revised local plan (2013).
I agree that sustainable development should go ahead throughout the country, however I feel that Warwickshire does not currently have the local infrastructure to support the large amount of houses currently planned. My concerns over the current plan are:
1. Warwick Hospital is already at maximum capacity with patients being cared for in areas not designed for overnight care on a weekly basis. Due to the location of the hospital there is very little area for future expansion. This issue needs to be addressed prior to considering any development.
2. Many schools in proposed planning site are at capacity.
3. The road network in Warwick already experiences a volume of traffic that it struggles to cope with which is a main contributing factor to Warwick experiencing pollution levels above European guidelines on safety.
Planning in Budbrook/Hatton (Sites R75, R114, R115, R117, R124, R125, R126)
I would like to highlight my concerns over the above planning sites
1. The A4177 of which the above sites feed onto already experiences a high level of traffic and has congestion on a daily basis. This will be increased not only by the planned 90 houses on one the above sites but also many of the other sites outlined in the local plan feed onto the A4177. This road would need to be improved dramatically to cope with proposed local development.
2. Many of the planned sites line the A4177 this will dramatically affect the approach along this road into Warwick. West Midlands have also highlighted sites along this approach and will cause an effect of one county sprawling/merging into the other. Clear boundaries will be lost.
3. Due to the poor transport links to Hatton Park the average house has two or more cars. This increase in traffic turning onto the A4177 from Hatton Park or the other proposed site will inevitably increase road traffic congestion and accidents on this stretch of road.
4. The increased traffic will make it dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians to use this route as the cycle path is too narrow to pass pedestrians also using the path. Therefore residents currently using this method will also have to revert back to car journeys. The national planning policy framework highlights sites selected should minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists/pedestrians
5. Ferncumbe Primary School and Budbrook schools are both on sites restricting their growth. With the proposed planning in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna, these schools will not be able to cope with the increased population resulting in children having to be transported to further afield.
6. Hatton Park currently has very little amenities with only a very small limited shop on the site, making it an unsuitable site to develop for anyone without a car.
Site R115
The greenbelt site R115 is of great concern as it borders Smith's Covert. Development of this site will result in the ancient woodland being locked by development. This piece of woodland is home to many protected animal species; bats as well as Muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, and birdlife including green and spotted woodpeckers and buzzards to name a few. These species will suffer if this corridor link from Smith's Covert to the greater countryside is blocked by housing.

Critically the development of this site will go against some of the key points in the national planning policy which aims to have sustainable planning that ensures development will not mean a worse life with loss of environment for future generations and actually greenbelt land that can be refilled by nature should be encouraged.
Site R115 already meets another key point of the national planning policy as it is a rural area that not only houses the above wildlife but is an area that contributes to carbon storage as it supports Smiths covert of which the biodiversity would change with development of the site while also supporting rural industry as it is an area of food industry.
Development of this site will result in Warwickshire council fundamentally going against key points of the national framework
Sites for Travellers
As I understand the need for designated sites within Warwickshire for the travelling community to remove the temptation of illegal sites, these sites above all need the most consideration to limit the impact on the exiting residents and the tourism in the area.
Proposed sites at Kites Nest Lane (GT13) and land adjacent to Shell Petrol station, Birmingham Road (GT19).
1. Kites Nest Lane is currently occupied by travellers of which have been served an eviction notice. By granting planning on this site sets a precedent for future illegal sites seeking retrospective planning.
2. Planning on either site will increase the amount of heavy vehicles along the A4177 increasing the risk of accidents.
3. Until Kites Nest Lane eviction is settled, Birmingham Road should not be considered, as the two sites along with the existing travelling community based on canal boots along the nearby adjacent stretch of canal would result in the travelling community representing an above average percentage of the community in an area that is one of Warwick's main tourist attractions (Hatton Locks)

To summarise the revised local plan is not sustainable development, it does not give enough consideration to the local environment, the current capacity of local services and the impact it will have on tourism and ultimately the impact lives of future generations living in the area.

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.

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.