GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

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 and extremely difficult to use hence the version by letter.

Part A

The information required in addition to my address is:
Telephone number: 01926 624455 / 07767 767565
Email: Amanda.griffin@expom.co.uk
Would you like to be made aware of future consultations on Gypsy Traveller sites - YES
Gender: Female
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.

I would be grateful if you could register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.
5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.
6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.
7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.
4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

* All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Green Belt 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.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16: Development would have a significantly 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass (speed limit 60 mph). There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Site 16 is a flood compensation area and therefore clearly an inappropriate site.
* Site 12 is immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 6,9, 10 and 20 are situated on historic landfill sites which, though not in use, may still release greenhouse gases and are therefore totally unsuitable for any form of permanent occupation.

I am opposed to these proposals for the following reasons:

* All of the sites have some ecological value and environmental issues which does not appear to have been assessed.
* WDC should revisit its Green Belt 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.
* Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 16: Development would have a significantly 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 provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
* Sites 12 and 16: Access to these sites is from the Barford Bypass (speed limit 60 mph). There have been a significant number of accidents on it, one of which was fatal. The existing access into the sites is completely inadequate.
* Site 16 is a flood compensation area and therefore clearly an inappropriate site.
* Site 12 is immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* Sites 6,9, 10 and 20 are situated on historic landfill sites which, though not in use, may still release greenhouse gases and are therefore totally unsuitable for any form of permanent occupation.

I wish to object to the proposal to site a gypsy and traveller site at Budbrooke Lodge/Racecourse/Hampton Road. This is far too near residential developments. I would think the 2 sites on the A46 and land at J 15 m40 would be more suitable if a pitch has to go in this area although I do not feel this area of Warwick should have more than one site. These 3 sites all fit the criteria and as these people are by nature travellers they will all have transport to access schools and medical facilities.

Please register my objection to the New Local Plan, in particular my objections to the proposed gypsy and traveller sites GT11, GT17, GT18 and GT20 in the New Local Plan.

South West Warwick has been so heavily developed in recent years and there is so much ongoing development, especially on the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park, that there is already an overburden on roads, schools and doctors.

I have concerns that having the large numbers of gypsy and traveller pitches so highly concentrated in these areas will have a negative impact on property prices, and on the pool of people who are willing to purchase. I am worried about the negative effect that an influx of travelling children will have on any one school. It is unlikely that these children will be at the same stage of learning as others the same age and their integration into the existing classes will require additional support from the teachers and teaching assistants. I don't see how this can have anything but a negative effect on the standard of teaching and learning that can be delivered without extra support being provided to the schools.

While I appreciate that sites needs to be provided, I think there should be some assurance that there will not be more than one site within a given radius, such as a 5 mile radius. I also think that sites should be no larger than 5 pitches, as this might feel more acceptable to people living close by. I personally have major concerns about management of the proposed sites. How will you prevent the expansion of any existing site? This is especially worrying where the proposed site has a large area for growth such as GT11.

I am most concerned with the proposal GT11 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the school, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed site within the local community, this indicates that the site will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that this site will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. The sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.


5. This site sits in part within the Flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the sites to Green Belt land. Any further hard standing within the area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain.


6. This site is located very close to the stable block that the Racecourse has built for the owners to prepare their horses, I have heard that there is a potential risk of disease from non-vaccinated animals. The racecourse brings many people into the town, this should not be put at risk.


7. GT11 is situated within a large area of land. I do not believe that there is any way of preventing illegal or legal growth at this site.

I have concerns with the proposal GT17, GT18 and GT20 for the following reasons:

1. The local infrastructure is not in place to cope with even more development in this area, in particular the schools, doctors and surrounding roads. I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


2. There is a massive amount of discontent and unhappiness with the proposed sites within the local community, this indicates that the sites will not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence between the sites and the local community, I believe this goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


3. I believe that these sites, all visible on major routes into Warwick, will have a negative impact on Warwick, in terms of house prices, desirability, tourism and ultimately businesses especially linked to tourism. This goes against the guidance 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites'.


4. These sites are located close to major interchanges and major arterial roads that already take huge numbers of vehicles. The councils own sustainability audit questions these sites for this reason and the living conditions this will place on the Travellers and their families.

I also have objections to the proposed numbers of new homes detailed in the New Local Plan. It is unrealistic to expect the infrastructure in Warwick to support 6,630 new homes without significant negative impact on Warwick town. It is dangerous and unrealistic to ask people to travel to Leamington via the M40 as this results in queuing on the motorway. I appreciate that Warwick town could be developed to allow for slightly better traffic flow, but this will most likely spoil the beauty of historic Warwick and thereby ruin the town as a tourist attraction. It may also result in people not wishing to settle or remain in Warwick which will rather defeat the need for expansion.

see attached

see attached

We write as residents of Barford in connection with the Local Plan Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

Development Strategy:

Our main concerns relate to the increase in traffic congestion that would be the result of any significant local residential development and the consequent increased risk of injury to pedestrian/equestrian and cycling persons. This would particularly relate to the local school children on their way to school during the morning peak time.
Church St/Bridge St, during the school term is particularly prone to congestion as the village is used as by vehicles leaving the M40 motorway in particular,in order to by pass the local motorway junction to access south Warwick/Leamington.

Because of parked vehicles in Church St large queues regularly develop on its approaches. This does cause some frustration to drivers who, we are aware, dangerously mount the pavement on the village green side of Church St to progress their journey. This situation is exacerbated by those children who are schooled in Barford and live outside of the village and whose parent(s) access the village by car and need to park up at the same time as the commuters to south Leamington are trying to pass through. The school we believe is also fully subscribedand operating at maximum child numbers. Any significant increase in local population would then require major costly redevelopment of the school.

The local plan identifies major housing development to the south of Leamington and Warwick to include new schools. To eliminate the risks (and major costs) identified above, would it not be sensible to increase the sizes of the PD sites 6 and 7 identified in the LP strategy brochure to accommodate any perceived development requirement for Barford say together with increasing the school capacity in those areas?

If the village is forced eventually to increase residential dwelling capacity, at the same time could some consideration be given to amending local roads and junctions and M40 motorway junction capacity/arrangements in order to deter Barford being used as a "rat run"from M40 and elsewhere? Perhaps in addition some meaningful traffic calming measures in Wellesbourne Rd/Bridge St, might also deter morning vehicle movement through the village from M40 and hopefully reduce what is at most times their excessive speed of travel.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites:

Our response relates to both the list of criteria in the WDC Response Form and the guidance on the government's aims in respect of traveller sites.

Our first comment, however, relates to how the WDC is expecting responses to be provided:-ie that Part B sheets are expected to be completed for each site. We really do not see why a generic response by letter as we are now doing is inappropriate.
There are many sites around Barford (in fact most of those in the southern area could be relevant to Barford. 15 no?) and to expect persons to return multiple documents would appear to be trying to put people off from responding.

From the outset we would confirm that we are against any gypsy/traveller sites in or around the village of Barford.

In our opinion there is not a homeowner who would agree to having a gypsy/traveller site established adjacent or near to theirexisting home. For any sites chosen close to existing residential developmentwe consider that peaceful and integrated coexistence between the two communities is unlikely to prevail. This is why we believe the sites near to Barfordidentified for further investigation (3,4,5,6,9,10,12,16,20) have been sited remotely from existing communities.
Is not the apparent remoteness of sites, however, at variance with proposals for integration and with the criteria that there is convenient access to a GP surgery (which Barford does not have), school and public transport, or provision of utilities, services, waste disposal etc. Is it not also at variance with avoiding areas that could have adverse impact on the natural environment or sites that can be integrated without harming the character of the area? The sites identified are all natural rural areas and their character will be badly affected.
For the reasons described why not locate the traveller sites within the proposed developments 6 and 7 around Warwick and 8 and 10 elsewhere.
In this way local existing communities will be minimally affected, all the "services" including schools etc will eventually be nearby to the traveller sites and the proposed integration could be better effected and sustainability will also be enhanced.
In addition the engineering aspects of drainage/flooding, safe road network etccan also be provided.
We understand that the location of traveller sites within some proposed developments has been successfully introduced by some London councils.

Can you advise also as to whether the WDC is liaising with other local councils in the provision of traveller sites.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to voice my strong objections to the council proposals regarding the planned gypsy sites close to chase meadow in Warwick. I believe they are ill advised for a number of reasons. See below;

1) Warwick is the most historical town of some significance within Warwickshire. In direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' these sites would have a negative impact on how the town is viewed by the visiting public and impact Tourism to the local area, particularly the Racecourse and Warwick castle who bring in a significant amount of revenue to the county.

2) The Hampton Road (GT11) site sits within the local flood plain. There is also particular concern of extremely close proximity of the site to Green Belt land used for farming, sports facilities and by local dog walkers etc.

3) As a regular race goer myself, I am also concerned that as the racecourse is a major investor into the town of Warwick and draws a large volume of race goers and holiday makers, the influx of travellers will impact course attendances and the local businesses which rely on them. It is a well known fact that the racecourse and the majority of the town centre businesses (I.e public houses, restaurants and shops) all close for business on the Easter bank holiday weekends as a direct result of the influx of travellers to the town for the racecourse Easter meeting.
The racecourse in recent years, have made a significant investment by building a stable block for owners to prepare their race horses and to provide overnight residence for horses and jockeys etc. and as this would be within a short distance from the proposed sites, there are potential risks of diseases being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred race horses.

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

see-attached

To whom it may concern,

I wish to make known my objection to the proposed traveller sites for the following reasons;

I believe it to be in direct conflict with the 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' the local infrastructure is simply not able to support one or more of these sites, especially the local schools, doctors, surrounding roads and social facilities.

The area of SW Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 10 years with the Chase Meadow Estate and Tournament Fields Business Park. This is already placing an overburden on the area, roads and the schools have/are undergoing extensive works to cater for the increased volumes this brings.

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

Dear Sir(s)

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

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

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

Dear Sir

I am emailing to lodge an objection to the proposed sites for gypsies & travellers around Barford and Sherbourne on the following grounds:

Sites 12 and 16 (Barford Westham Lane) -flood plain, existence of water voles in the area and significant issue with vehicular access from and on to the Barford bypass road A429. Also there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access to the village at the end of Westham Lane.
Site 20 - near Longbridge Roundabout - no facilities nearby, inadequate vehicular access, unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, situated adjacent to historic landfills and therefore unsuitable for any form of permanent habitation and occupation.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to register my representations regarding two aspects

* the WDC Consultation on the Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, and
*the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan

For the Revised Development Strategy for Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, I object to the proposals to Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 20 for the following reasons:

Site 5
Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site ( see point above)

*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) with respect to this site.

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 6
*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park

*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.

*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer along this stretch of Flat Rabbit Road) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.

*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) with respect to this site.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.

*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.

*This site is so close to Barford, that it would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 9
*This site is situated on historic landfills and therefore not suitable for building homes and habitation.

*This land adjoins land (The Asps) which the WDC has previously concluded should remain undeveloped from a transport and landscaping perspective with the views surrounding the Warwick Castle and its historic park.

*This is an area supporting a range of wildlife (I frequently see deer on land next to this areas of land - Site 6) whose habitat would disturbed or removed as a result of this site.

*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) with respect to this site.

*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland.

*This site is close to Barford, and would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children.

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 10
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a lot of fast travelling cars, and lorries.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 12:
*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.

*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.

*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.
*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) with respect to this site.

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.

*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 16
*The proposed site 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.

*Part of this site is within and certainly directly next to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk. It is therefore completely inappropriate for building houses and any occupants.

*Barford village residents have reported seeing water voles on this site which are a legally protected species.

*The A429 bypassing Barford is a very dangerous section of road carrying a lot of fast travelling cars, and especially a large volume of lorries to and from Wellesbourne. There have also been several serious accidents and a recent fatality, which makes pedestrian and vehicle access to the proposed site unsafe.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the congestion on the roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

*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) with respect to this site.

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an enormously adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and river around Barford, Wasperton and Sherbourne.

*This site immediately adjoining Barford would likely have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children and not able to cater for additional capacity.

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Site 20
*Vehicle access would be dangerous to and from the site as the serving roads carry a massive amount of heavy traffic including fast travelling cars, and lorries.

*No ready access to local community facilities (e.g. doctors, schools etc.). A car would be needed to travel the distance which would add to the already busy and congested roads and the danger of accessing the road/site (see point above).

*This site would not allow for peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

*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) with respect to this site.

*Development of this site would have a material effect on the landscape, having an adverse impact on the visual aspect of this picturesque countryside and farmland

*The site is unavailable and not deliverable.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed site. They would be more suitable and sustainable.

*WDC should be meeting the requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

Please see below my representations to WDC's Consultation Programme on the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan. I object to the proposals on the following grounds:

*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the local hospitals and schools.

*The increase in the number of people associated with the developments would put undue pressure on the amenity services such as water and drainage.

There would be increased traffic congestion on all the roads in this area (for example: Banbury Road, Bridge End, Myton Road, Europa Way etc. and the knock on effects beyond). These roads do not cope well with current levels of traffic and any improvements to traffic flow would only improve it for that traffic and not for the vast increase in traffic flow associated with the proposed developments. All car and bus journeys in these areas would become much slower and the increase in the need for town centres car parking would be put under yet further pressure.

*The District Council has proposed the need to provide about 12,000 houses of which nearly half are to the south of Warwick and Leamington, even though the local need is for fewer than 6,000 new houses by 2030.

The combined sites result in a large loss of agricultural land when there is a need for more and cheaper food and the local farming community losing jobs from the rural economy.

WDC should balance its plans within the county to allow site development to the north of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth by reviewing its Greenbelt Policy.

*WDC should identify Brownfield sites within the urban areas of Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington as alternatives to the proposed sites and exploit those properly first.

*WDC should combine its requirements to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites as part of the Local Plan for the proposed major new housing developments in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. The sites would be more suitable, sustainable, and fully integrated with the proposed and existing local amenities and facilities without the need to access them using motorised transport and adding to the congestion on the road network.

*WDC should designate large areas of land the south of Warwick and Leamington including Warwick Castle Park and its surrounds, The Asps and proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 as Greenbelt to protect the natural beauty of this part of the county (as it is to the north of the county) and to retain the identity and boundaries of the villages by surrounding them with Greenbelt to include proposed Gypsy and Traveller Sites 12, 16 and 20. This will spread the pressure around the county for new developments rather than focus it to the south.

*The proposal to build 70-90 new houses in Barford (a "Secondary Service Village")would have a negative impact on Barford St. Peter's School which is just going through an expansion currently to better accommodate the current school children. The school would not be able to accommodate more school children associated with this additional housing and is therefore not sustainable.

see attached

Dear Sir/Madam,

Revised Development Strategy and Sites for Travellers

I should like to put my objection in writing,as requested on your comments feedback.

My outline objections are that the estate I live on, Chase Meadows, house prices will reduce with "sites" so very close to us.
Burglaries will increase. Local bars and shops have to close on Bank Holidays due to an over spill of Travellers attending the races.
Is this acceptable from a Warwick tax payers point of view?

Why can't these "sites" be put on green belt sites away from normal hardworking population, who struggle to improve their
lives i.e. moving to a semi rural area where the estate is advertised as "very sought after area". You intend to build 150
homes on green belts sites, so what difference, therefore, would a Traveller Site situated in the same environment make ??

I would advise to read the Sun newspaper, story below recently published:

Gypsy invasion as council boss goes on travels
Mob free to terrorise village West Parley after
liaison officer who deals with them went on hols

TRAVELLERS ran amok in a village for TEN DAYS while the council officer who deals with them was on holiday.

Scared locals were threatened with violence and urine was thrown at a child after 40 gypsies invaded a recreation ground.
The mob used a kids' play area as a toilet, damaged picnic and park benches and even chopped down a 20ft tree.
But when residents rang Dorset County Council to evict them they were told gypsy and traveller liaison officer Paula Clover was on leave.
The council had no proper back-up plan for dealing with travellers — which wins them a Sun Non-Sense Award in our campaign to highlight the battiness of rule-makers.
Parish council chairman John Cullen was chased out of the park in West Parley, near Bournemouth, as he tried to take photos of the damage.
He said: "A van drove across the field towards me with three extremely large blokes in the front.
"They told me to stick my camera where the sun doesn't shine, I legged it.
"I was told some people were threatened by lads on quad bikes and that a bucket of wee was thrown at a child."
The travellers quit the site after being served a 48-hour eviction notice — leaving the village with a £1,000 clean-up bill.
Villager Pat Couper, 77, said: "They broke a padlock to get on to the recreation ground.
"The following week the liaison officer said they had to spend 24 hours to assess their needs.
"The process had to be done in the proper way so not to infringe their human rights.
"It didn't seem to matter that they'd caused criminal damage."
Dorset council's deputy leader Hilary Cox said: "The parish council did not get, perhaps, the assistance needed, when they needed it."
Police said they had reports of anti-social behaviour but added "there is no criminal investigation".

Are these the sought of people that should be living around Chase Meadow???