GT12 Land north of Westham Lane, Barford (green)

Unlike may of the other options this site has many things going for it

The area of search is unsuitable for the following reasons mindful of the Council's own criteria:

The first criterion is for convenient access to a GP surgery. There are no GP surgeries in Barford. This site would, therefore, fail in this criterion. Although there is a school and limited public transport - the effect of the Barford bypass means that these services are not particularly accessible to this area of search and certainly there is no adequate pedestrian crossing facility to assist in accessing these services.

The western part of the area does fall within the flood plain as identified on the Environment Agency maps. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.

In my view safe access would not be possible. The Barford By-Pass already has a poor accident record. In my view adding more traffic in this location and slow moving vehicles would exacerbate an already unsafe situation. It is my view that delivering an acceptable access is not possible.

To the east of the site is located the bypass and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding locating development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance.

There are no utilities within the area of search.

The Council has produced no evidence in relation to the ecological and biodiversity importance of the land within this area of search. It is my contention that development in this area would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity interest contrary to the provisions of the NPPF. Indeed I am very much aware that the area contains a number of protected species including but not limited to water voles and badgers which, I understand, to be legally protected species. This, in my view, represents a failure to accord with the Council's proposed criteria to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment.

Given that this site is greenfield and divorced from the settlement of Barford it is not considered capable of accommodating development that could be successfully integrated into the landscape without materially harming the character of the area.

This site does not fully accord with the provisions of 'Planning Policy for Traveller sites' as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and does not avoid undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

In light of the above I wish to object to the area of GT12 on the basis that it is not appropriate as a gypsy and traveller site and would urge the Authority to proceed no further with this as a potential site. It is unsuitable, undeliverable and undevelopable.

It is appropriate to remind WDC planners that Barford waited many years for the A429 bypass, now used by a considerable volume of fast-moving, daily traffic including HGVs from as far away as Honda in Swindon. The GT12 and GTalt12 sites require slow-moving site traffic to leave and join much faster bypass traffic. They would also require pedestrians, including children, to cross this busy highway at peak times. I confidently, but sadly predict that serious, even fatal accidents will occur if either of these sites are selected. I am amazed that these locations are even being considered by experienced professionals.

The Barford bypass (A429) is a busy road with heavy traffic. This site is on the opposite of this road to the village amenities.
The nearest doctor's surgery is only reachable by bus - there is only one bus an hour through the village

This is a prominent site outside the built up area and separated from the village by a 60 mph bypass. It is extremely visible to passing traffic and located where planning permission would not be given for development under normal policies. Crossing the road would be very dangerous. There is no GP Surgery in Barford and the school is full. This is a totally unacceptable use for this agricultural land. The development would obstruct the view across the fields of Sherbourne Church when viewed from the south. Any policy which seeks to develop this site for Gypsy and Traveller use is predicated on favouring one group of people over the general populace which is discrimination based on race (see the WDC Gypsies & Travellers Q and A Answer 1), that should be illegal.

Looking at your own Criteria on page 13 of the Local plan, Sites for Gypsies and Travellers not one of the points from 1-10 apply to this unsuitable site. Furthermore the owner of this site is not willing to sell this land so a compulsory purchase would have to be obtained. No section of society should be given special rights above everyone else. It does not bring about equality.

I am a resident of what is, according to the Sunday Times, one of the most beautiful places in England in which to live. However, I see you have plans to ensure that some other village will, in future, inherit that accolade. I am referring to your plans to ruin a beautiful part of Warwickshire by installing freeloading, itinerant, parasitic, squalid thieves adjacent to the village of Barford. The adjectives are born of direct experience, not simply hyperbolic opinion.
I have read the various documents you have assembled, none of which explain why you cannot simply resist this requirement and only explain the lengths you have gone to in order to satisfy a minority, non contributory interest. The one document I cannot seem to find is the GTAA assessment report itself. So, could you please forward me a copy of the Salford University GTAA report (November 2013)?
I am interested to know why, in the space of four years, your assessment for provision of pitches rose from 11 in 2008, to 31 in 2012. I assume that the report I have requested will answer this question.
To Mr Rhead, cc'ed. You are responsible for the security of our beautiful land and the communities who work so hard to create and sustain our environment. If you fail in that responsibility and are responsible for the loss of a thriving local community, summed up perhaps by the beautifully quaint, somewhat quixotic success of the local shop, then it will be to your eternal shame.
yours in utter disbelief,

Submission concerning the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Budbrooke Ward
I am writing as a Ward Councillor and would like to put forward various points for consideration. I would like to say at the start that I am not predetermined in my views and I am prepared to listen to other arguments on the subject of sites within WDC.
Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed
On 4th February this year The Minister responsible for Travellers, Brandon Lewis MP, said:
"Our policy strengthens protection of the greenbelt and the open countryside by making clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate for greenbelt development and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside. Unmet demand — whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing — is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelt to constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt."
Government policy has been supplemented by a Ministerial statement4 in July 2013 which, although focussing on development management decisions and the Interpretation of the G&TPP, sets the general approach expected by the Government with regard to providing sites in the Green Belt:

"... the single issue of unmet demand, whether for travellers' sites or conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development."

The G&TPP has been prepared on the basis that LPAs will make their own assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, rather than relying on regional allocations as had been required hitherto.

Oaklands Farm is a site within a wider hamlet of dwellings along the Birmingham Road, 4 houses immediately to the south towards Warwick, then beyond Ugly Bridge Lane, there is a Shell petrol station and a further 10 properties. Further along the road there is the roundabout and the entrance to Hatton Park. All the dwellings on the Birmingham Road are of long standing within the Green Belt. The farm has permission for caravan storage and a kennels business on the site. It has been the subject of many planning applications over the years and I would like to remind members of some of these incidents:

The following structures have been approved in the recent past
- A replacement dwelling and the replacement of the existing kennels.
- Permission for the existing vehicular access to remain for agricultural purposes only.
- Use of the barn for caravan repairs and servicing with the associated caravan parking area was also approved.

An application for using the site for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused by Warwick DC Planning Committee on the grounds of Green Belt with the following observations taken into consideration, the site is on a busy and fast main road which had had 2 fatal accidents in a near proximity within the last 5 years.
The landowner applied to extend the caravan storage business and for change of use from agricultural land use to storage, both applications were rejected by WDC as not being permissible in the Green Belt.

Much of my arguments for removing Oaklands Farm from the list of preferred sites is due to the Inspector's comments concerning the Kites Nest Travellers site, as that site is less than a mile away from Oaklands Farm and the Green Belt argument was used very successfully in the removal of travellers. I will say that the same arguments can be used with regard to Oaklands Farm.

To quote from the Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal dated 22nd October 2013

"For development to be allowed in the Green Belt, very special circumstances need to be identified. What constitutes very special circumstances are not identified by local planning authorities. The term is consequently a moving target as appear to be the weights and measures used to arrive at a weighted decision. The appellants (at Kites Nest) provided a list of 15 issues that could be considered as very special circumstances as to why the development should be allowed. These did not include such common issues as health, education or children. The issues are complicated and fraught. I will ask what are the special reasons to consider overthrowing Green Belt policy at Oaklands Farm? from the paper put forward I can see none.


In Para 64 of his statement The previous Inspector involved with Kites Nest found that the development was very prominent through 'gappy hedges' and from public footpaths and that the existing caravans were an "extremely jarring element"; the Secretary of State agreed with this assessment.

The Oaklands Farm site would be very visible due to the 'gappy hedge' along the road and also from the canal, and also the road is higher than the site so occupants would be overlooked. In the current consultation document, comment is made that a habitat buffer would be required to the south of the site abutting the canal, I would argue that a landscape screening buffer would also be required for any gypsy or traveller site to give the residents privacy on both sides of the site, let alone the jarring element of the site for local incumbent residents and people passing along the road or canal.

The Inspector also found, and the Secretary of State agreed that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that community would be dominated by a 13-pitch scheme. The same applied to an 8-pitch scheme.
This also applies to Oaklands Farm as it is situated between 4 houses to the south, the petrol station to the north followed by a row of around 10 houses, so the proposal if pursued would dominate the local community along this road. The 5 proposed pitches would increase the property density by 25% along this stretch of road and therefore change the local dynamics.

83. To quote - Policy B of the Planning Policy for Travellers sites - PPTS says that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" and Policy D says that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community". The use of the term "community" is deliberate; it is not the same as settlement or that term would have been used. There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of community amongst the occupiers of the 10 or so dwellings in the immediate vicinity.

The previous Inspector accepted that 'the scattered houses 'do form an identifiable community.

Birmingham Road houses form a community and therefore I would argue that this site would be going against the Inspectors comments which have helped WDC in the past.

I would like to make two further comments on the Oakland Farm site, firstly the provision of education for gypsy and traveller children. It is suggested that the children could attend Budbrooke School, two comments should be made about this suggestion; Firstly Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton Green could not be looked at as an alternative as it too is full. Secondly, regarding children I would be very concerned about the health and wellbeing implications for young children living next to the canal.

Finally regarding this site if it is chosen I would say that the current landowner's business would be put at considerable risk and I would ask the question - would WDC be liable to pay compensation if the site is acquired under a CPO?

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

I will briefly cover the two option sites at Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey as the arguments I have put forward regarding the Oaklands Farm site can equally be used for these two options, both are within the green belt, so the Kites Nest arguments are very relevant. There is no exceptional circumstance argument for these sites to be used, they are very obvious from the main road, Hampton on the Hill being adjacent to the main Henley Road and the lane entering Hampton on the Hill village. The Norton Lindsey site is on the Warwick Rd approaching the village, so not only are they visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but also considering traveller privacy I would argue that they would face being over looked from the road and therefore their privacy would be lost. Both these roads, although subject to a 50mph restriction are very fast roads and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the sites by large vehicles with trailers attached.

Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey are both close village communities and as I have previously said both the indigenous community and the traveller community need to be considered for a cohesive community to be maintained. I would argue that the proposals would destabilise the balance of the communities to the detriment of both villagers and any site residents.

Both sites have been put forward for by land owners for change of use, in the case of Norton Lindsey for residential housing - this was rejected on the grounds of green belt and the busy road. Hampton on the Hill site is subject to an injunction to prevent any travellers entering the site and as far as I know this injunction was instigated by the District Council with the support of local residents to safeguard the site. I find it odd that the Planning Department are suggesting this site when it goes against their own policy!

I would therefore suggest that all three sites within the Birmingham Greenbelt should be withdrawn as being unsuitable, mainly due to the Inspectors views and also WDCs own policies, let alone government policy regarding G&T sites.

Barford Sites

Now I would like to turn to the Barford sites within my ward. I would first like to correct the consultation document, the doctor's surgery in the village closed over 30 years ago so would not be accessible for the travellers! Also the Barford Bypass has a sixty mph speed limit along it and is used by a large number of vehicles on a daily basis who exceed this limit. Cllr Caborn in his capacity as the County Councillor for this area is well aware of local concerns regarding the number of accidents along this road, I will say that children walking to school across this road would be put at considerable risk if either site went forward for further consultation. Neither site is within the Warwickshire green belt but they are within the Arden Parkland highlighted by the Kites Nest Inspector last year, so need to have special consideration due to their high landscape quality. Both sites would require Compulsory Purchase and would incur a great deal of Council Tax payer's money being spent.

Local people are very concerned about the inclusion of both sites:

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

The main arguments against this site have already been mentioned in my preamble, a dangerous road and lack of a doctor's surgery. The risk of flooding of the site has been shown over the last few weeks with the site being under water at some times. Basically it is common sense not to place people across a major road from facilities, children and fast traffic do not mix!

Secondly, GT12alt - land off Barford Bypass - proposal for 15 pitches

It's location on the inside of the bend has resulted in the Parish Council being told that the County Council will not support this scheme on grounds of road safety.

The other major reason to remove this site from the preferred options is the involvement of local people from within Barford who have been so active in enhancing this site following the securement from Warwickshire County Council of the lease of this land to the Parish Council. The acquisition of this land has allowed local people to have access to the river and they have put a great deal of work into site, following it's identification in the Barford Village Plan of 2005.
European LEADER money was applied for and granted for 25 rare and local trees to be planted in the orchard and the river walk to be created. Over 40 villagers have worked regularly on the site over the last 3 years .This means Thousands of pounds worth of 'in kind' contributions doing the following:
- cutting back undergrowth
- cutting and raking grass,
- digging and planting the Orchard and 25 River Walk Trees
- pollarding
- Learning how to prune
- creating and gravelling paths
- Creating steps and safe slopes
- Maintaining the grass paths and cutting the 'Wild' strips.
- Mowing the Orchard and open areas
- Installing Gates and benches.
- The local Heritage Group gave money for plaques and the Diamond Jubilee Oak.
Future plans include bee hives and a wild meadow area which has already been sown.

True Localism and community effort by local people.

Oldham's Bank is now part of a village walk which takes villagers through the Orchard and along the River. It has seating areas (much enjoyed by older members of the community) and the walk adjoins another footpath through to the neighbouring village of Wasperton

Oldham's bank has been listed as one of the Community assets on the recently submitted 'Community Right to Bid' submission

Whilst the site was "derelict" after CPO to build Barford Bypass it is also classified as "highway" and any move to use it would require all the legal process and expense to remove that status. The remainder of the site is in private ownership and is not being volunteered by the landowner so would require a separate CPO.

If this land were to be acquired as a Gypsy and Traveller Site I would argue that the likelihood of a "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" would be strained. The site is too large and would have a jarring impact on the landscape which is so vital to this area and the view across the Sherbourne from Barford would be spoilt.

In summing up, as Ward councillor for all these sites I would ask that they all be removed as they are not in the spirit of localism and would not benefit our local people or the gypsy and traveller community.

Submission concerning the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Budbrooke Ward
I am writing as a Ward Councillor and would like to put forward various points for consideration. I would like to say at the start that I am not predetermined in my views and I am prepared to listen to other arguments on the subject of sites within WDC.
Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed
On 4th February this year The Minister responsible for Travellers, Brandon Lewis MP, said:
"Our policy strengthens protection of the greenbelt and the open countryside by making clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate for greenbelt development and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside. Unmet demand — whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing — is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelt to constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt."
Government policy has been supplemented by a Ministerial statement4 in July 2013 which, although focussing on development management decisions and the Interpretation of the G&TPP, sets the general approach expected by the Government with regard to providing sites in the Green Belt:

"... the single issue of unmet demand, whether for travellers' sites or conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development."

The G&TPP has been prepared on the basis that LPAs will make their own assessment of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, rather than relying on regional allocations as had been required hitherto.

Oaklands Farm is a site within a wider hamlet of dwellings along the Birmingham Road, 4 houses immediately to the south towards Warwick, then beyond Ugly Bridge Lane, there is a Shell petrol station and a further 10 properties. Further along the road there is the roundabout and the entrance to Hatton Park. All the dwellings on the Birmingham Road are of long standing within the Green Belt. The farm has permission for caravan storage and a kennels business on the site. It has been the subject of many planning applications over the years and I would like to remind members of some of these incidents:

The following structures have been approved in the recent past
- A replacement dwelling and the replacement of the existing kennels.
- Permission for the existing vehicular access to remain for agricultural purposes only.
- Use of the barn for caravan repairs and servicing with the associated caravan parking area was also approved.

An application for using the site for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused by Warwick DC Planning Committee on the grounds of Green Belt with the following observations taken into consideration, the site is on a busy and fast main road which had had 2 fatal accidents in a near proximity within the last 5 years.
The landowner applied to extend the caravan storage business and for change of use from agricultural land use to storage, both applications were rejected by WDC as not being permissible in the Green Belt.

Much of my arguments for removing Oaklands Farm from the list of preferred sites is due to the Inspector's comments concerning the Kites Nest Travellers site, as that site is less than a mile away from Oaklands Farm and the Green Belt argument was used very successfully in the removal of travellers. I will say that the same arguments can be used with regard to Oaklands Farm.

To quote from the Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal dated 22nd October 2013

"For development to be allowed in the Green Belt, very special circumstances need to be identified. What constitutes very special circumstances are not identified by local planning authorities. The term is consequently a moving target as appear to be the weights and measures used to arrive at a weighted decision. The appellants (at Kites Nest) provided a list of 15 issues that could be considered as very special circumstances as to why the development should be allowed. These did not include such common issues as health, education or children. The issues are complicated and fraught. I will ask what are the special reasons to consider overthrowing Green Belt policy at Oaklands Farm? from the paper put forward I can see none.


In Para 64 of his statement The previous Inspector involved with Kites Nest found that the development was very prominent through 'gappy hedges' and from public footpaths and that the existing caravans were an "extremely jarring element"; the Secretary of State agreed with this assessment.

The Oaklands Farm site would be very visible due to the 'gappy hedge' along the road and also from the canal, and also the road is higher than the site so occupants would be overlooked. In the current consultation document, comment is made that a habitat buffer would be required to the south of the site abutting the canal, I would argue that a landscape screening buffer would also be required for any gypsy or traveller site to give the residents privacy on both sides of the site, let alone the jarring element of the site for local incumbent residents and people passing along the road or canal.

The Inspector also found, and the Secretary of State agreed that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that community would be dominated by a 13-pitch scheme. The same applied to an 8-pitch scheme.
This also applies to Oaklands Farm as it is situated between 4 houses to the south, the petrol station to the north followed by a row of around 10 houses, so the proposal if pursued would dominate the local community along this road. The 5 proposed pitches would increase the property density by 25% along this stretch of road and therefore change the local dynamics.

83. To quote - Policy B of the Planning Policy for Travellers sites - PPTS says that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" and Policy D says that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community". The use of the term "community" is deliberate; it is not the same as settlement or that term would have been used. There is a close-knit and neighbourly sense of community amongst the occupiers of the 10 or so dwellings in the immediate vicinity.

The previous Inspector accepted that 'the scattered houses 'do form an identifiable community.

Birmingham Road houses form a community and therefore I would argue that this site would be going against the Inspectors comments which have helped WDC in the past.

I would like to make two further comments on the Oakland Farm site, firstly the provision of education for gypsy and traveller children. It is suggested that the children could attend Budbrooke School, two comments should be made about this suggestion; Firstly Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton Green could not be looked at as an alternative as it too is full. Secondly, regarding children I would be very concerned about the health and wellbeing implications for young children living next to the canal.

Finally regarding this site if it is chosen I would say that the current landowner's business would be put at considerable risk and I would ask the question - would WDC be liable to pay compensation if the site is acquired under a CPO?

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

I will briefly cover the two option sites at Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey as the arguments I have put forward regarding the Oaklands Farm site can equally be used for these two options, both are within the green belt, so the Kites Nest arguments are very relevant. There is no exceptional circumstance argument for these sites to be used, they are very obvious from the main road, Hampton on the Hill being adjacent to the main Henley Road and the lane entering Hampton on the Hill village. The Norton Lindsey site is on the Warwick Rd approaching the village, so not only are they visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but also considering traveller privacy I would argue that they would face being over looked from the road and therefore their privacy would be lost. Both these roads, although subject to a 50mph restriction are very fast roads and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the sites by large vehicles with trailers attached.

Hampton on the Hill and Norton Lindsey are both close village communities and as I have previously said both the indigenous community and the traveller community need to be considered for a cohesive community to be maintained. I would argue that the proposals would destabilise the balance of the communities to the detriment of both villagers and any site residents.

Both sites have been put forward for by land owners for change of use, in the case of Norton Lindsey for residential housing - this was rejected on the grounds of green belt and the busy road. Hampton on the Hill site is subject to an injunction to prevent any travellers entering the site and as far as I know this injunction was instigated by the District Council with the support of local residents to safeguard the site. I find it odd that the Planning Department are suggesting this site when it goes against their own policy!

I would therefore suggest that all three sites within the Birmingham Greenbelt should be withdrawn as being unsuitable, mainly due to the Inspectors views and also WDCs own policies, let alone government policy regarding G&T sites.

Barford Sites

Now I would like to turn to the Barford sites within my ward. I would first like to correct the consultation document, the doctor's surgery in the village closed over 30 years ago so would not be accessible for the travellers! Also the Barford Bypass has a sixty mph speed limit along it and is used by a large number of vehicles on a daily basis who exceed this limit. Cllr Caborn in his capacity as the County Councillor for this area is well aware of local concerns regarding the number of accidents along this road, I will say that children walking to school across this road would be put at considerable risk if either site went forward for further consultation. Neither site is within the Warwickshire green belt but they are within the Arden Parkland highlighted by the Kites Nest Inspector last year, so need to have special consideration due to their high landscape quality. Both sites would require Compulsory Purchase and would incur a great deal of Council Tax payer's money being spent.

Local people are very concerned about the inclusion of both sites:

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

The main arguments against this site have already been mentioned in my preamble, a dangerous road and lack of a doctor's surgery. The risk of flooding of the site has been shown over the last few weeks with the site being under water at some times. Basically it is common sense not to place people across a major road from facilities, children and fast traffic do not mix!

Secondly, GT12alt - land off Barford Bypass - proposal for 15 pitches

It's location on the inside of the bend has resulted in the Parish Council being told that the County Council will not support this scheme on grounds of road safety.

The other major reason to remove this site from the preferred options is the involvement of local people from within Barford who have been so active in enhancing this site following the securement from Warwickshire County Council of the lease of this land to the Parish Council. The acquisition of this land has allowed local people to have access to the river and they have put a great deal of work into site, following it's identification in the Barford Village Plan of 2005.
European LEADER money was applied for and granted for 25 rare and local trees to be planted in the orchard and the river walk to be created. Over 40 villagers have worked regularly on the site over the last 3 years .This means Thousands of pounds worth of 'in kind' contributions doing the following:
- cutting back undergrowth
- cutting and raking grass,
- digging and planting the Orchard and 25 River Walk Trees
- pollarding
- Learning how to prune
- creating and gravelling paths
- Creating steps and safe slopes
- Maintaining the grass paths and cutting the 'Wild' strips.
- Mowing the Orchard and open areas
- Installing Gates and benches.
- The local Heritage Group gave money for plaques and the Diamond Jubilee Oak.
Future plans include bee hives and a wild meadow area which has already been sown.

True Localism and community effort by local people.

Oldham's Bank is now part of a village walk which takes villagers through the Orchard and along the River. It has seating areas (much enjoyed by older members of the community) and the walk adjoins another footpath through to the neighbouring village of Wasperton

Oldham's bank has been listed as one of the Community assets on the recently submitted 'Community Right to Bid' submission

Whilst the site was "derelict" after CPO to build Barford Bypass it is also classified as "highway" and any move to use it would require all the legal process and expense to remove that status. The remainder of the site is in private ownership and is not being volunteered by the landowner so would require a separate CPO.

If this land were to be acquired as a Gypsy and Traveller Site I would argue that the likelihood of a "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" would be strained. The site is too large and would have a jarring impact on the landscape which is so vital to this area and the view across the Sherbourne from Barford would be spoilt.

In summing up, as Ward councillor for all these sites I would ask that they all be removed as they are not in the spirit of localism and would not benefit our local people or the gypsy and traveller community.

It is a little early to comment on these sites, however I thought that I had better point out a couple of factors to you, I am sure that you will feed these to the relevant officer.
You will recall that we met last year regarding the Avon Navigation Extension. The Feasibility Study for this is still being refined, however the Study nominates a ribbon of land for the canal to bypass the Sherbourne loop of the Avon which includes GT12, north of Westham Lane, Barford. This means that this land would be excavated to form a canal cutting.

In addition the Study proposes that the Community Land considered for GTalt12 becomes a destination for access to Barford village and is provided with visitor moorings. I doubt if this use will be compatible with a GT site.

There is no local GP surgery in Barford. This site is in a location of a recently planted village orchard and so would not promote peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community

1. Safety issues in crossing the Barford by-pass to access service.
2. Unlikely that the site could connect to the public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.
3. The landowner is not willing to sell this site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.
Not a good option!

1) I support all five sites listed as Preferred Options
2) I object to inclusion of site GT11 in the list of Alternative Sites, for reasons stated in my submission to initial consultation of June 2013, as per attached file
3) i reserve the right to submit further comments and/or objections on any listed site(s) prior to any final decisions being made by the Council

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS, JUNE 2013
SITE GT11 - SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
I was quite shocked to learn that this land, labelled GT11, adjacent to the Chase Meadow estate, is being considered by the Council for use as a possible large scale permanent site for Gypsies and Travellers (Gypsies and Travellers Sites - Options for Consultation, June 2013, Warwick District Council) in connection with its new Local Plan.
Indeed, there are so many reasons why the use of a large part of this land as a Gypsy and Traveller site cannot possibly fit any rational planning policy criteria that, as a qualified planner, I have to question why it was ever considered in the first instance?
It is hard to know where to start with objections to this proposal but in this detailed submission I set them out in three sections as follows:
 Objections to the Council's approach to needs assessment, which underpins the subsequent site search options.
 Specific objections to site GT11.
 Recommendations for a sustainable approach to site search and assessment, with additional potential sites proposed.
Throughout this submission, 'GTC' refers to Gypsy and Traveller Community; 'the Council' refers to Warwick District Council (WDC); 'the District' refers to Warwick District.
OBJECTIONS TO OVERALL APPROACH
1. Assessment of Accommodation Need - General Approach
The document 'Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012 is part of the National planning framework and sets out guidance in respect of the government's aims in respect of traveller sites, an extract from which states:
 to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies
 that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for planning purposes

In addition, the 2011 Localism Act sets out a 'duty to co-operate' in the production of joint development plans on a cross-authority basis, especially where a local planning authority has planning constraints across its area as in Warwick District where the Green Belt covers 81% of its modest 109 square miles, (in comparison Stratford District contains 378 square miles).
However, in respect of the foregoing, the Council admits it has attempted to, but failed to liaise and work with adjacent councils, both in assessment of need and in the identification of suitable sites, and has therefore continued to try and identify land within its own boundaries to serve its own need, ie at a relatively small geographical scale.
Such an approach makes little sense in relation to the GTC, which is by its very nature transient, and where administrative boundaries have little if any, relevance. Thus identification of need and planning of site provision is best carried out at a larger (sub-regional or county) scale in order to be strategic, robust, rational and equitable.
The Council's approach to this issue can therefore be seen to be fundamentally flawed, even at this preliminary stage.
2. Assessment of Accommodation Need - Quantification
Since 2008 there have been a whole series of GTC accommodation needs assessments for permanent pitches the District, with widely varying results.
The original 2008 (South Housing Market) assessment identified a District requirement for 11 permanent pitches, subsequently the Regional Spatial Strategy allocated 23 to the District for the period 2007 - 2017.
However the Council subsequently rejected this figure suggesting it was based on limited evidence and therefore not robust or reliable, and undertook its own assessment which reported in April 2011. This concluded that demand for permanent GTC sites in the area was 'low and transitory in nature' and recommended provision of a 12 pitch transit site only, (15 caravans).
In 2012 the Council appointed consultants from Salford University to carry out a detailed assessment of GTC accommodation needs within the District. Although the final report is quite lengthy, the key figure of 31 permanent pitches (2012 - 2026), is based fairly simplistically on current (2012) unauthorised encampments of 23 pitches (1 pitch = 1 household). However, their separate estimate, from interview survey, of the number of GTC households 'based in the District' was 30, but of these, only 7 were actually living in caravans, the rest were living in bricks and mortar houses!
In view of their wide range, the reliability of all these estimates of GTC permanent pitch need must be questionable.
OBJECTIONS TO SITE GT11
Site Location and Nature
This is a substantial area of search, within which a large site of 12 pitches/19 caravans would be located i.e. approximately 6,400 m2 in area, (at 500 m2 per pitch). Such a site would be expected to accommodate some 45 persons, based on an average GTC household size of 3.7, however it is not unreasonable to take this as a minimum estimate for planning purposes.
Bounded by mature trees to the A4189, it is currently in use as farmland but also contains a spur to the racecourse track and one large residential property. The area is less than 20 metres via the A4189 from the edge of Chase Meadow, a large residential estate of approximately 1,000 dwellings, due to increase to approximately 1,400 when fully developed. Hence present and future population figures of 4,000 and 5,600 respectively can be estimated for the estate at an average of 4 persons per dwelling.
Assessment against Policy Criteria
The suitability of GT11 can partly be determined by assessing the extent to which the site meets, or fails to meet, each of the 10 policy criteria as listed in the Council's document 'Sites for Gypsies and Travellers', June 2013, paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, as listed in the next section.
It should be noted however that these ten are not necessarily the only or the most appropriate criteria, have not been consulted upon, moreover they do not fully take into account the National guidance ('Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012), as they omit a key National policy requirement, namely the protection of local amenity - see page 7.
1. Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
Whilst access to these may be physically convenient, both the local GP practice on Chase Meadow and both Newburgh Primary and Aylesford schools have no spare capacity, primarily due to existing demand from the resident population of the Chase Meadow and Forbes Estates and from projected future demand from the former - an additional 1,600 persons. Moreover, in the case of the schools, the demand on teaching time and resources from the GTC is likely to be disproportionately greater per pupil than from the settled community, due to the former's well documented special educational needs
CONCLUSION - FAILS
2. Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is directly bounded to the east by the Gog Brook and a tributary stream to the north, the former falling within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 3, hence a measurable risk of flooding is present. (See also under 3. below)
CONCLUSION - FAILS
3. Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
In the vicinity of the site, there is already a high volume of peak time traffic flows along the A4189 Hampton Road with eastbound traffic approaching at relatively high speeds and considerable traffic turning movements from and into the Chase Meadow and Forbes estates. Due to the high levels of GTC vehicle ownership, the proposals for this site would significantly exacerbate traffic congestion by generating additional flows and turning movements, in particular of large, slow moving commercial vehicles, many towing caravans and/or trailers. Moreover, this is a road that is subject to periodic flooding in the vicinity of the racecourse main entrance, and where the road is restricted in width due to parked vehicles along the residential frontage.
CONCLUSION - FAILS on safe access
4. Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
The site is subject to significant traffic noise from the adjacent A46. A related issue is the 'noise and disturbance' which might be generated by the resident GTC themselves and so would be likely to adversely affect the amenity of adjacent Chase Meadow residents. CONCLUSION - FAILS
5. Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
As this is essentially a green field site, there are no utilities present; they would all have to be provided from scratch at considerable cost and higher than that for other brown field equivalents.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
6. Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment.
This is a sensitive urban fringe location, adjoining the Green Belt boundary at the A46 by pass, and this importance was reflected in its designation by the Council in 2012 as a 'Green Wedge' search area, areas that the Council are committed to protecting in future:
The Council will identify and protect a network of green wedges important for their ecological, landscape and/or access functions in the setting of differing urban areas and urban rural fringe. It is intended that this approach will revise and replace the existing policy of Areas of Restraint in the Local Plan 1996 - 2011.'
(New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, paragraph 15.14).
Related to the above, the site lies at a key 'Gateway Route' via the A4189, into the town of Warwick. Despite screening, due to its large scale there would most likely be an adverse visual impact from the perspective of both the racecourse and the A4189. In particular in the case of visitors and coach borne tourists approaching from the east, their first visual impression of Warwick, a town of national historic and cultural importance, would be a large gypsy encampment!
CONCLUSION - FAILS
7. Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
As for 6. above.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
8. Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
Site locations close to existing residential areas are more likely to increase rather than reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities, especially if both are at larger scales as with GT11. This is due to fundamental incompatibilities between the two communities, arising from the nature of the GTC culture, way of life and economic activity, and regardless of whether sites are authorised or not.
There is also evidence that crime and antisocial behaviour increases due to the presence of large numbers of the GTC in a locality.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
9. Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
As for 1. and 3.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location) thereby omitting many travel to work journeys, can contribute to sustainability
There will be no net increase in 'sustainability' as the same factors already apply to existing unauthorised sites, and all GTC sites will generate many 'travel to work' journeys. Moreover, to the extent that these sites are commercial and industrial in nature as well as residential, this is clearly incompatible with established planning principles of zoning and separation and likely to be detrimental to local amenity and environment. ie detract from 'sustainability'.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
The protection of local amenity is an important consideration in any planning process and a specific requirement of the government's March 2012 guidance for traveller sites: 'for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment'
It has already been noted this key aspect is not even included in the Council's 10 criteria, and one has to question why - could it be because the Council are fully aware that GTC sites invariably have a detrimental effect on local amenity, and extending beyond the boundaries of the sites themselves?
There have been several large scale unauthorised gypsy encampments in the District in recent years, including locations in Kenilworth, on Warwick Racecourse and on Myton Fields. In all these cases it is on the record that the sites have been left badly littered and degraded when vacated, requiring costly clean up and remediation work, all paid for out of public funds. Similar ongoing negative impacts are likely to be generated with permanent sites, which could affect the amenity of any adjoining residential areas. The larger the sites and the closer to the residential areas, as in the case of GT11, the larger the impacts are likely to be.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
SITE SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT
Site Search and the Green Belt
Twenty options for sites/areas of search are listed, the sizes are not given but many comprise substantial areas. The distribution of these sites within the District is noticeably skewed, with 65% located in the south, 40% immediately west of Warwick and 4 or 20% located within 1 kilometre of a major residential area, Chase Meadow estate
The Council may claim this is due to a need to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development, but it is also a result of the Council's failure to co-operate with adjoining councils, necessary because it is both small in area, and predominantly Green Belt.
It is important to note at this point that Chapter 9 of the 'National Planning Policy Framework', March 2012, makes it clear that the Green Belt, which covers the northern four fifths of the District, does not represent an insuperable barrier to development; indeed the preparation of a new Local Plan provides opportunities 'to review and adjust Green Belt boundaries and also to identify areas for development' (Paragraph 84).
The Council took on board this National guidance in its Green Belt policy, (New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, Chapter 16), which allocated substantive residential and employment development on Green Belt land with associated boundary adjustments. The justification for this Preferred Option was set out in the Housing Chapter of the same report, and although Chapter 16 is silent on GTC sites, it seems logical that they would be permissible on the same grounds as housing. Regrettably, and misguidedly, the Council has now changed its approach to the broad location of growth from that set out in the May 2012 report, and which is now the subject of major but separate objections.
Nevertheless, the March 2012 National Policy Framework still applies and should be taken into account by the Council in the identification of suitable traveller sites, as outlined in the next section.
Site Search Process
As things currently stand, in moving to the next stage of this part of the Local Plan process the Council will need to identify a 'preferred' list of suitable sites, not necessarily from the current options.
How should the Council go about this crucial next stage?
Good access to the trunk road network and locations within reasonable travelling time, say 15 minutes, of major urban areas should be the key initial considerations.
As the GTC have high levels of vehicle ownership, the availability of public transport is a subsidiary issue.
A sequential search process, (a well established planning principle), should then be followed, starting with brownfield sites, (which may already have some infrastructure, utility connections etc), including those close to/adjacent to industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only when the previous stages have been exhausted would it be necessary to consider greenfield sites, some of which may be in the current Green Belt and starting with those close to/adjacent to agricultural/industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only as a final stage, and if necessary, would consideration be given to greenfield sites close to or adjacent to small scale residential areas.
There should be no need in this process to consider sites close to or adjacent to large scale residential areas, with all the conflicts and problems this would be likely to generate. Indeed, a search exclusion zone of at least 1 mile should be applied around such areas. The reason for this is the fundamental incompatibility between the GTC and the settled community, due to the nature of the GTC culture, lifestyle and economic activity, previously referred to.
At each stage, sites can be assessed against the relevant national and local policy criteria.
As an example of a robust and rational approach to site assessment reflecting the above principles, I would commend that recently adopted by Lewes District Council, ('Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment 2011 - Lewes District Council'), based on a set of 14 criteria, which had been widely consulted on by both the local settled and traveller communities. Sites were scored against each criterion, and subsequently ranked.
One of the criterion was the proximity to large numbers of residential properties, identified as a negative factor, on the grounds that:
'In order to promote understanding and tolerance between local residents/landowners and Gypsies and Travellers, it is important that any impact on the living conditions for local people are acceptable. The number of residential properties in proximity to sites is therefore a factor'
This is yet another very good reason to reject site GT11 on the grounds of its proximity to the large Chase Meadow estate.
Locations Not Yet Considered
There are a number of locations apparently not yet considered by the Council with potential to provide suitable sites, including:
 Castle Park - an extensive tract of land to the south of the town but with no public access
 Various areas of vacant land north of Warwick town centre in the vicinity of the canal, e.g. sites around Lower Cape
 Open fields adjacent to the river/canal/railway line between Warwick and Leamington
 Areas adjacent to Warwick/Leamington southern urban fringe and industrial estates e.g. Gallows Hill, Heathcote Lane, etc
In conclusion, this objections submission clearly shows the perversity of ever including site GT11 in the present options list, a site which demonstrably fails to meet ANY of the relevant national and local policy criteria. Thus, the Council should give no further consideration to this site.
Whilst the Council's underlying approach to this whole GTC sites issue is also shown to be fundamentally flawed, some constructive proposals are put forward in relation to identification of suitable alternative sites.
I rest my case.

This is a VERY POOR CHOICE and is not good for G&Ts at all - side of very busy (>20K vpd) derestricted road - VERY NOISY which would be difficult/impossible to mitigate for caravans - very dangerous for pedestrian access to facilities - the road already has a serious accident record - no services on site - loss of Grade 2 agric land and rendering unviable. Part of site is actually spillage/reed pond for the bypass

I wish to make representations specifically about proposed Traveller site GT12 and also generally about the manner in which this process has been carried out.

Firstly regarding GT12. I am a resident of Westham Lane. This previously idyllic rural location, which has no mains drainage or mains gas has been blighted over the last few years by the activities of the Council on the basis of the greater good for the many while damaging the lives of we few who live on the west of Barford. We have had our lifestyles permanently damaged, without compensation, by the building of the bypass. Our properties have been devalued by the noise, visual intrusion and increased traffic on the bypass. We do not have the benefit of the usual council road and other utility services, while still paying huge rates due to the alleged value of our properties. Numerous Road Traffic accidents have occurred on the bypass and it is dangerous to get out of the lane onto the bypass. Access to Westham Lane is dangerous for the few vehicles that currently use it. Access for slow-moving articulated and towing vehicles is simply not viable.

Now this latest unlooked-for intrusion of proposing to put permanent sites for "travellers" close to our homes has been dreamt up out of nowhere simply because we live in an isolated rural spot. Does nobody spot the contradiction in terms of "permanent" sites for "travellers"? All of the objections to the many proposed sites point out the increased crime statistics near such sites. It is against the human rights of the fixed community to inflict this intrusion on them.

As the whole site is bounded by the river Avon, containing extensive natural flood plains which do flood every year to a great extent, with concomitant greater danger to temporary homes and caravans, the only viable area which has a reduced chance of flooding is the higher "spine" of land which Westham Lane follows out to our properties. The land falls away on both sides down to the river. The livestock farm has just one field on the south side for the sheep to retreat to and the arable farm floods well up into the crops every year.

Any site will therefore be extremely visually intrusive from either direction on the bypass as it cannot be located far from Westham Lane. There is no vegetation at all providing any screening.

There is no drainage on the West side of Westham Lane. All of our properties have soakaway drainage or septic tanks. This would not be an option for the proposed site, with large numbers of people. The water table is (obviously) very high and this form of sewage/waste disposal would be hazardous to health and would pollute the river.

It would be an inappropriate and exorbitant cost to provide mains drainage to the site, with the bypass between the drainage system and the proposed site, and would not be considered at council expense for our dwellings.

Similarly, there is no mains gas provision for any dwellings on Westham Lane. The huge expense of providing this for the "Traveller" site, due to the bypass, should again be considered unacceptable.

I have previously raised the issue of the Bronze Age remains in many places on the proposed site but apparently this is irrelevant.

These are issues specific to GT12 but I wish to associate myself with most of the objections raised by other objectors about the other sites.

If provision must be found it should be in small, remote, well-screened sites away from other dwellings as far as possible, to prevent the "rights" of "travellers" from trumping the rights of local, settled home owners who have worked to pay for their homes and whose lives and financial futures must not be damaged by this proposal.

Generally, the way the Planning Department has gone about this process should be the subject of an inquiry in itself. Many comments refer to the scatter-gun approach. This lengthy farce has already blighted, and continues to blight, the lives of thousands of home owners. The sites which have been considered but now dropped demonstrate the inadequate work which had been carried out before their inclusion and many of those which remain, such as GT12 are, likewise, immediately identifiable as being unsuitable.

Please acknowledge receipt of this objection and confirm that it will be included in the consultation.

I would lke to add my own comments in support of those made by Councillor Sawdon with particular reference to the Barford Sites being inappropriate and thus requesting that they should be removed from the ultimate consideration:-
1. Contrary to the report there is no doctors surgery in Barford and none has existed in the village for more than 30 years;
2. Placing these sites on the side of the Barford Bypass away from the village means that to access the village facilities requires crossing a busy new bypass that, while restricted to 50mph, is the main artery between the M40 and the Commercial/Industrial estates in Wellesbourne; to ask children and adults to cross this road is a dangerous proposal;
3. Notwithstanding the issue in 2 above the traffic noise from the Bypass would be unhealthy for residents in these pitches;
4. The sites are either in a flood risk area or are in an area provided to the village by WCC for a green space amenity.
5. There are other more appropriate areas such as either within the new housing developments where land could easily be allocated for sufficient pitches or off the Fosse Way near the roundabout at the Warwickshire Exhibiton Centre.
6. The sites would require a lengthy and expensive CPO process;

Adverse impact on landscape character, adverse effect on the setting of a heritage asset - Barford conservation area, expensive to supply infrastructure, adverse effect on existing agricultural land, access to site would be dangerous due to 60mph A429 (bypass) which would also be noisy for people living on the site.

Numbered paragraphs refer to the criteria proposed on P 13 for selecting suitable sites
1) There has not been a GP surgery in Barford for about 30 years. The nearest surgery quoted is in Bishops Tachbrook which is a difficult 4.4 miles away by road. Although there is a school and buses do pass through the village hourly during the day - the need to cross the Barford Bypass means that these services are not easily accessible by pedestrians.
2) The western part of the area lies within the flood plain. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.
3) Safe access to the road network would not be possible. Large slow moving vehicles trying to enter or leave this site would cause an unacceptable and unnecessary hazard on a fast moving (60 mph) road which already has a poor accident record.
4) The Barford Bypass is adjacent to the site and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance. Caravans are thin walled and provide little attenuation for occupants. Traffic noise reduction measures would reduce the land available for the site, be very expensive and not very effective.
5) There are no utilities within the proposed area so these would have to be provided. This is proposed as a site for only 8 pitches - but if noise reduction measures are to be taken then this number would be reduced. The cost of this will be borne by the Gypsies and Travellers and would add significantly to the individual pitch price making the development uneconomic.
6) The proposed site is Grade 2 agricultural land. It forms part of a small holding and selecting this area as a Gypsy & Traveller site will render the holding un-viable .
8) The Barford Bypass will create a physical barrier to integrated co-existence between the site and the village of Barford.
9) The New Local Plan has already allocated an increase of 70 -90 new homes for the village of Barford which will place significant strain on the local infrastructure. Traffic through the village already causes a problem at peak times, the School is full, there are no medical facilities and limited public transport facilities are available. The imposition on the village of a Gypsy & Traveller site will only cause further strain.

SUMMARY
This location is not suitable for a Gypsy & Traveller site as there is no Doctor's surgery in the area. The busy Barford Bypass adjacent to the site will cause noise, create danger and form a barrier to peaceful co-existence with the village

Furthermore the owner of the site is not willing to sell and Compulsory purchase proceedings would therefore need to be initiated.

This site is unsuitable, undevelopable and undeliverable

This site is :-
* a potential flooding area: (flooded in 1990s).
* >2 miles to a GP is hardly 'convenient' as either would need several buses to get there.
* unmonitored living by a river is:
-dangerous for children;2 drowned recently
-likely to pollute river particularly with no access to mains sewer.
* Busy Bypass produces
-high noise unless bunded
-crossing danger for motorists and pedestrians
* adverse visual impact on a section of a world-famous river.
* planning permission on this site would never be granted to villagers

With reference to the "Criteria" at para 6.1 of the plan I comment as follows adopting the relevant sub-para numbers.
1. It is claimed that the site is 2.6 miles from Bishops Tachbrook and 2.9 from Hampton Magna. According to Google maps it is 4.3 miles and 3.6 miles respectively. It is not therefore as convenient as claimed to a doctors surgery, assuming, that facilities are available. Public transport would not be a viable option.
Also, any of the facilities in Barford, particularly the school, would entail crossing a busy road with children being obliged to do so twice a day. Supervision would be needed but out of school times this would not be available.
3. Exiting from the site into fast moving traffic will be a danger particularly if turning south. Also entering the site from the north will require a centre lane to be created otherwise a dangerous situation will be created. There has already been one fatal accident on this stretch of road.
4. This site is at the side of the A429 carrying fast and noisy traffic. It would not be possible to prevent noise. If bunding is proposed, of doubtful value and contrary to sub-para 7, it would serve to obscure the view of Sherbourne church.
5. There is no main drainage. Any none mains system will have to take account of the river/flood location.

Additionally. Compulsory purchase required thereby increasing costs.

Fewer larger sites should be preferred to reduce the overall costs of maintenance and administration.

Except for lack of immediate facilities and pedestrian access this would seem to be a suitable site in many ways.

Not good site - busy 60mph road -many accidents already. Pedestrian access difficult all times. VERY NOISY - caravans sensitive to noise - mitigation - expensive, poorly effective and require more landtake. High landscape value on busy tourist route - could not be mitigated by screening without further damaging the views. No services on site. Nearest doctor is at BT is 4.4 miles by car -no public transport route. Barford school is very busy and extra 85 houses in the New Local Plan will overload it. This land is also high quality and loss will challenge the viability of enterprise.

I would like to express my concern at the choice of these two proposed gypsy sites in the new Local Plan.

Both sites border the Barford Bypass, which is a very fast road and has sadly been the site of some very serious motoring accidents causing fatalities. Access into and out of these sites onto such a busy road would be most inappropriate, particularly with large vehicles.

Barford has no doctors sugery, only one community shop and a very small village school and these could only be accessed by crossing the very busy Bypass. The services available in Barford are therefore very limited to residents of a permanent gypsy/traveller site, who would surely benefit from being closer to a town offering access to wider health, social and shopping facilities.

The proximity to the river Avon would also be a problem, as at least one of these proposed sites is prone to flooding.

These two suggested sites are both situated in areas of outstandingly beautiful Warwickshire scenery which borders this stretch of road used by traffic travelling to the Cotswolds and beyond. It would be sad to see this area destroyed by development of any kind.

I hope these points will be considered when making a decision on these proposed sites.

General. Then Specifically GT12.

People are encouraged to integrate into society, why then do we have exclusive sites for gypsies and travellers (G & T's)?
The schools will be told to hold places for G & T children. When the children do not attend, will they be fined?
It is commonly known that children of G & T's affect the learning process of other children in a school; most do not have the same standards, and therefore slow the whole education process for all.
G & T's have often taken over land that they have no right to be on, and leave a mess when they are finally evicted. This has to be cleared up, often at the taxpayers expense. Example; car park opposite Warwick School, which cost over £8000 to clear and the loss of car park revenue, Hareway Lane and Banbury Road field, Warwick and many sites in Leamington.
If sites are to be provided, who will ensure health and safely is adhered to, and if they, by definition are travellers, who will ensure they abide by rules and regulations, and not just leave with a trail of unpaid bills and a mess for others to clear up and pay for?
Who ensures that the premises and/or caravans are not overcrowded?
In my house deeds, I am not allowed to have a caravan on my property. How do G & T's get this facility?
Who is going to police the sites? The police are known to be very reluctant to enter these sites.
Who is going to ensure rates are paid to the local authority, electricity and water? If a bill is not paid, will you be able to trace the defaulter if they have left the site?
How do travellers pay their taxes, if they do not have a permanent address? If they want healthcare, schools, roads, police and fire services, surely they have to contribute to the state coffers?

The specific site in Barford. (GT12)

The land potentially allocated to the site in Barford is good agricultural land. How can it be allocated to G & T sites, or any other use?
Barford is a very exclusive place to live, and is in the top ten in a recent survey. It has diverse housing and people aspire to live in the village, by saving and striving to better themselves. Why can people not doing this be given a right to instantly domicile in the village, and have no connection with the locality?
The land proposed in Barford possibly has one of the best positions for miles; looking over the River Avon and across the Sherbourne basin. If a house were to be built there, it would command a massive premium.
Having a G & T site, with caravans on a main artery to Stratford and the Cotswolds will not be a very good advertisement, and it could effect tourism in this important area.
There are two pubs in the village. It is known that when G & T's visit a town or village, the pubs close, for safety reasons. Example Kenilworth. I fear for the survival of these local amenities.
The cost of providing services to the proposed sites would be prohibitive and uneconomic. Who pays for this if the development goes ahead?
The Barford by-pass has fast moving traffic, and is not easily crossed by either traffic or pedestrians. Currently little pedestrian traffic is using it, and therefore the danger to people and vehicles is kept to a minimum. Having a site on the side of this road will increase the pedestrian, and vehicle use exponentially.
The site cannot be adequately screened, as the close proximity of the by-pass does not allow it. It would be excessively noisy for inhabitants.
There are no doctors surgeries for miles, and no dentists in close proximity.

There is a very substantial risk that the proposal would lead to serious injury and, quite possibly, a death or deaths.

The A46 is very dangerous as the traffic is fast and plentiful and becoming ever more dangerous, exemplified by a recent fatal accident on the Barford by-pass involving a car emerging from a side road. This means that access to the main road could not be described as safe, especially when large, slow moving vehicles are likely to be involved. This road would have to be crossed by pedestrians wishing to get to the extremely limited services available in Barford, the shop, church, school and bus stops, a particular challenge for children and the elderly.

The bus stops to which reference is made enable access to a restricted service and it should be noted that neither of the mentioned routes travel to either Hampton Magna or Bishop's Tachbrook.

Expecting a small village school to accommodate extra pupils when demand already substantially exceeds supply of places or to undergo further expansion with no consideration as to how this would be funded is entirely unrealistic.

Because the site is outside the curtilage of the village, but is likely to be substantial in size, occupied by people of an alien culture and extremely unpopular with existing local inhabitants, there is a very substantial risk of ghettoization, with all the implications that would bring. The fact that the travellers would be living and working at the same location would bring risk of noise and other potential adverse impacts on the local area

No safe access to the road network: Barford bypass is extremely fast, busy and dangerous. Access to and fro the road is dangerous (cars slowing down to exit are a problem) and it would be extremely unsafe for pedestrians to cross.

The road is also extremely noisy, including through the night, which would also violate the noise criterion.

Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community: Further, the road prevents integration with the village - the site will remain separate and this will create social exclusion.

Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: The landowner is unwilling to sell, which is prima facie evidence that there would be a negative impact on the character of the area. This is a greenfield site and will inevitably have greater impact than a brownfield site.

Access to GP surgery: The nearest GP Surgery is actually 4.4 miles away by road (not as the crow flies)

This is a beautiful country area which can not be classed as suitable or sustainable in any way. There is no local GP there isn't even access into the village without crossing a very busy bypass and this would have to be crossed by children for the local primary school and children to catch busses to other schools. The access to the road network is on a fast stretch of main road which has already seen accidents and fatalities. Socially the Gypsys and travellers are very different to the local village people which is bound to cause issues. There are no local police.
Barford has been voted one of the best villages to live in the country (No. 52 I believe)! how can WDC possibly feel that it is a suitable location for a G&T site. The villagers have worked hard to create a clean, safe and very friendly environment for children and all residents which will be shattered by the introduction of the proposed G&T site.

The bypass is a very busy, fast paced road which would make this site very unsafe for travellers and motorists alike. As the site would be visible from the road I would worry about the distraction to drivers, and the possibility of traveller pets or young children having easy access to the road.

Not only that, as a local resident I know that the noise from this road is considerable and should not be underestimated. Allowing a residential site so close to this road without proper noise insulation would be unhealthy for traveller residents.

This is a greenfield site with high visibility to all those travelling along the road and existing residents in Barford and surrounding areas. As this area is a natural and historical environment there would be a detrimental impact to quality of life and historical landscape. As this is a greenfield site new facilities would need to be built (water, waste disposal etc) meaning there would be considerable damage to wildlife and noise disturbance to residents. it is also isolated from the village, all of which means this would not promote a peaceful integration process with the local community.

My main concerns are to safety this land is right by the road kids will play or use for cycling its really dangerous a cycle track would need to be built as well as overpass bridge that allows cyclists and prams. Funding sewerage systems for such a small site beggers belief. I feel sorry for anyone put there how can you intergrate if you don't feel safe.

1. Location on other side of A429, which is a fast moving and dangerous road, where there have already been fatalities. Also cost to provide any access to site will be expensive and still dangerous.
2. Still near flood plain.
3. Nearest GP is 4.4 miles away from location - clearly not near.
4. The cost of providing utilities will be high due to lack of access to any currently.
5. Location on a key tourist road between Warwick and Cotswolds will impact local tourism.
6. This site will place undue pressure on local infrastructure and service and materially harm the character of the area.