GT15 Land east of Europa Way (green)

Preferred Site GTalt01
Brookside Willows Banbury Road
Of the proposed preferred sites surrounding Bishop's Tachbrook this one appears to be the most suitable. It has already been developed with infrastructure as a caravan site at great expense but has not been utilised as such for whatever reason. I assumed it was because it is the site of an old dump and there are problems caused by contamination. However as a preferred option this is either not the problem or it can be overcome. I do not know the ownership of the land and whether the site will have to be purchased and at what cost.

Located in a dip, the site is well screened by surrounding woodland and will not impact the landscape. Much of the site is reclaimed land of no great agricultural value. It is elevated above the Tach Brook so not prone to flooding and is near all local amenities & facilities with an already built access to the Banbury Road. The site meets all the criteria as deemed necessary in the guidelines of the NPPF. For all these reasons this site would be suitable for a permanent and transit G&T site.



Preferred Site GT15
Europa Way Bishop's Tachbrook
This site abuts a very busy link road making access and egress very dangerous. The site is steeply sloping and would require major/expensive works to level. Moreover the land is wooded without any facilities and utilities such as sewerage etc. For these reasons I think the site would be unsuitable for a G&T site.










Alternative Site GT05
GT05 Tachbrook Hill Farm, Mallory Road Bishop's Tachbrook

Situated on the edge of Bishop's Tachbrook near the junction of Mallory Road and Banbury Road; this is already a very dangerous junction where a number of accidents including fatalities have been recorded. Increased traffic especially vans and lorries from the proposed G&T site would add to the danger of this junction and access to Mallory Road.

The site on rising elevation is very exposed and would be detrimental to the approach view to the village. In addition the site presently used as agricultural land. Indeed the farmer/landowner is not willing to sell and the site would be subject to compulsory purchase. In addition the extra transient and or permanent G&T population will put an excessive strain on the resources of the village school and part-time GP surgery. For these reasons I believe this location would be unsuitable for a G&T site.



Alternative Site GT06
Park Farm/Spinney Farm Banbury Road

My objection to this site is on the grounds that it would make an enormous adverse affect on the rural landscape and visual approach to Warwick as a major tourist destination. It is close to the important A452 & A425 junctions with heavy motorway access traffic and commuter traffic into Leamington, Warwick and Aston Martin and JLR at Gaydon. Apart from increasing noise and pollution the extra traffic entering & exiting on to the A452 from the site would add an extra road hazard to the already overloaded roads in the area.

The site is also farmland and would diminish the viability of running a farm enterprise. For these reasons this would not make and ideal G&T site

Alternative site GT04
Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse way Junction
It would seem perverse to turn a purpose-developed football ground (home of Leamington Football Club) into a G&T site. The expense and disruption of relocating the Club has not been evaluated or for that matter costed. For this reason alone this would make this a non- viable site. Harbury Lane is already a very busy commuter route from surrounding areas and this site with vehicle entering & exiting on to it would add to the traffic burden and cause a major safety hazard.

It would also be highly visible travelling down the hill from the Fosse way and become an unnecessary blemish on the rural landscape. Overall these reasons make this site a non-viable a G&T site.

WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation


The JPC accepts that allocations must be made for the G&T community within the WDC New Local Plan - rather than relying on sites coming forward through the conventional planning process and we also understand the importance of G&T issues in the Local Plan process, however the JPC believes that any such allocation must be made on a fully democratic and objective basis.

When the June 2013 consultation was staged we were unimpressed with the level of detail provided and very disappointed at the lack of local knowledge and erroneous justifications for selected sites. It can be no surprise that local communities erupted in response to such ill thought-out blight on our district.

Given the levels of residents' responses it is surprising that the Preferred Options consultation has now followed with a similar level of erroneous information and even less quantifiable justification for the Preferred Option choices.

We find the presentation of material confusing at best given that much of the important evidence is buried on the website as "Further Evidence" and "Background" and much that is there is either erroneous and/or conflicting with the March 2014 PO document. At another level we and the vast majority of our residents who have commented found the "Drop-In Sessions" with just a couple of posters and scattered booklets to be a singularly poor way to disseminate information especially as the staff provided had minimal technical knowledge of the subject matter and made it clear that they would not be collating comment made on the day.

We are also concerned at WDC's apparent willingness to rely on the Compulsory Purchase approach given the associated costs and delays which will render most sites non-viable financially and non-deliverable in the terms required. Furthermore success of the CPO process has yet to be established as evidenced by the 2012 Mid Suffolk DC case when the Inspector found insufficient evidence to support CPO on the grounds of "public interest".

We would question WDC's election to limit site sizes to a maximum of 10 pitches, with some considerably less, as this means that site provision must then blight more communities and settlements than is reasonably necessary. If site size limitation is in order to facilitate management and policing this surely gives credence to many residents' concerns about crime and disorder in or near such sites.

Reduction in site size (or more specifically pitch numbers on individual sites) loses economies of scale in terms of establishment costs, management costs and land take whilst directly impacting a greater number of the general population.

National guidance suggests sites of 5-15 to be preferable and this would suggest that our required 31 pitches could reasonably be accommodated in two or at most three sites.

The JPC would suggest that any or all proposed sites could be best accommodated and assimilated in areas which are not current settlements and that they should be properly planned, at a very early stage, into much larger schemes preferably incorporating residential and employment development.

We find the cursory dismissal of such an approach (Page 12, end of section 5) totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

The JPC also believes that the Siskin Drive and Gateway area should be vigorously explored to create a site with a mechanism to accommodate the G&T community within an evolving area where they could best integrate with their surroundings.

Whilst reviewing WDC's commentaries on sites in the original and the current consultation we have found that they are erratic and inconsistent. Criteria are sometimes used to support a choice/site and at other times the same criteria are used in a converse manner. The way in which the supporting Sustainability and Sites Assessments have been used to arrive at the Preferred Options is opaque in the extreme and certainly the interpretation of the Sustainability Assessments based on colour coding appears to be minimally objective.

Examples of inconsistencies relate to noise impacts, site prominence in the landscape, flooding, agricultural land value/viability, proximity of services and pedestrian access/safety. Latterly, especially with the "GTalt" sites, there seems to be an inordinate reference to "surface flooding".

The paperwork provided and the public consultations staged also seem to take no or little account of the cost implications inherent in the various Preferred Option choices and we believe this should be a significant factor when making a final selection given the inherent importance of economic viability.

In consideration of the above the JPC has conducted an objective assessment of all the sites which have come forward under these consultations, as well as our lay skills permit, and concludes that not all of the selected Preferred Options are indeed the best sites of those presented.

The findings are presented in spreadsheet format showing support where we believe it to be appropriate. Where we draw different conclusions we offer rebuttal and further comments as seems appropriate and helpful.

The spreadsheet details are as follows:

* Column 1 - Site identification number and PO indication and JPC support or otherwise
* Column 2 - Précis of WDC comments
* Column 3 - JPC commentary
* Column 4 - Sites which JPC consider could reasonably be progressed (where sites cannot be integrated into "larger schemes").

Inevitably the JPC has been much exercised by contact from residents concerning sites proposed within our JPC parishes and we must comment that these sites seem to have been singularly poorly selected. This situation is not helped by the fact that they seem to have come forward accompanied by blatantly incorrect supporting information, viz:
* Repeated reference to Barford doctors' surgery - when the last part-time surgery closed over 30 years ago
* Inclusion of the Barford Bypass flood compensation pond area as site GT16
* Inclusion of Barford Community Orchard and Riverside Walk in GTalt12
* Inclusion of spillage/reed ponds within GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the maps for GT12 And GT16 in June 2013
* Confusion over the map of GT12 in March 2014
* Confusion over the map of GTalt12 in March 2014

On a purely local basis it seems bizarre and is certainly unacceptable to blight Barford, recently judged amongst the best 10 places in the Midlands (and number 57 nationally) to live, with the Preferred Options selection of such obviously poor sites. Should the Barford sites persist we are sure that residents will support the landowner in challenging Compulsory Purchase, increasing costs and delay to all concerned and further impacting deliverability.

We are also reminded that there is a duty to co-operate across boundaries and would draw your attention to the site which Stratford DC have at Blackhill, immediately adjacent to Sherbourne parish.

We hope that you will take this letter and the associated spreadsheet in the constructive manner in which it is intended, in order to assist in achieving the best possible solution for both the settled and travelling communities.

I would like to respond to the latest consultation process for the five potential sites .

Part A
Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.
The whole G&T issue seems to be driven to support the Draft Local Plan, rather than to be the correct solution in itself . I strongly believe that the sites should be considered within the New Local Plan and not as a separate exercise.
I have attended the WDC exhibitions and it appears that there is no justifiable reason why the G&T sites cannot be reviewed and incorporated into the new sites designated for providing the 12,300 houses currently under consultation.
I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT12, GT 15 and GT alt 12 alt 01.

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 GT alt 01 - sits 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 site GT alt 01for the same reasons.

* Sites GT 12, GT alt 12 and GT alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT12 alt 01 - 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.

* Site GT 15 - this site sits alongside Europa Way which following recent upgrade is now an even busier road. There is no apparent logic to this site what so ever , indeed the site has no access to any local facilities and would be best integrated into one of the areas of land being considered for new local housing


* Sites GT12 and GT 12 alt 01 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. It is an extremely busy road and crossing and road improvement measures would require significant investment to be safe for users.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12, GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15, - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12, GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15 - 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 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. These sites should be integrated into new housing sites identified for the New Local Plan. The new G&T sites can be integrated into those sites from the start. Discussions with developers confirm that they would be willing to accept a number of G&T sites into new housing development areas along with affordable housing schemes.


* Availability - none of the sites listed are available, namely sites GT 12 , GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15. 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.

I would like to respond to the latest consultation process for the five potential sites .

Part A
Part B

Commenting on the Gypsy and Traveller Site Options.
The whole G&T issue seems to be driven to support the Draft Local Plan, rather than to be the correct solution in itself . I strongly believe that the sites should be considered within the New Local Plan and not as a separate exercise.
I have attended the WDC exhibitions and it appears that there is no justifiable reason why the G&T sites cannot be reviewed and incorporated into the new sites designated for providing the 12,300 houses currently under consultation.
I would like to refer my comments specifically to the following sites:
GT12, GT 15 and GT alt 12 alt 01.

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 GT alt 01 - sits 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 site GT alt 01for the same reasons.

* Sites GT 12, GT alt 12 and GT alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT12 alt 01 - 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.

* Site GT 15 - this site sits alongside Europa Way which following recent upgrade is now an even busier road. There is no apparent logic to this site what so ever , indeed the site has no access to any local facilities and would be best integrated into one of the areas of land being considered for new local housing


* Sites GT12 and GT 12 alt 01 - there is inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. It is an extremely busy road and crossing and road improvement measures would require significant investment to be safe for users.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12, GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15, - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the isolated sites (eg site 12) totally unviable.

* Sites GT 12 and GT 12 alt 01 - 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 GT 12, GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15 - 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 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. These sites should be integrated into new housing sites identified for the New Local Plan. The new G&T sites can be integrated into those sites from the start. Discussions with developers confirm that they would be willing to accept a number of G&T sites into new housing development areas along with affordable housing schemes.


* Availability - none of the sites listed are available, namely sites GT 12 , GT 12 alt 01 and GT 15. 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.

I am writing to object to proposals by Warwick District Council to site permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites near Barford, and suggest the Council considers the former Ford Foundry Car Park in Leamington Spa as a particularly suitable alternative site. The car park is discrete, relatively secure, close to employment opportunities, transit services, shops, schools, Health and Hospital facilities, and Catholic Churches.
In the 2011 census, Gypsy or Irish Travellers (over the age of 16) had the highest proportion of no qualifications for any ethnic group at 60%, higher than for England and Wales as a whole (23%). They also had the lowest proportion of people rating their general health as 'very good' or 'good' at 70% compared to 81% of the overall population of England and Wales. Proximity to good schools for all ages, adult education and health care services are essential if Gypsies and Travellers are to enjoy a more settled lifestyle and the benefits therefrom.
"Religion is of great importance to many Gypsies and Travellers, in terms of their daily lives and through rituals and gatherings. Irish Travellers are often devout Roman Catholics and their children attend Catholic schools. Many go on pilgrimages to Lourdes or in Ireland. Large numbers of Romany Gypsies are now Born-again Christians. They find love and solidarity in the Church and in meeting up with others from across Europe at large Christian conventions." [Bristol City Council's, Gypsies and Travellers - The Truth].
"The Government believes that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home. Decent homes are a key element of any thriving, sustainable community. This is true for the settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities alike." [HMG, Department for Communities and Local Government, 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide'].
"Warwick District Council is required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Housing Act 2004 to meet the accommodation needs of the population within their area. This includes the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community and that of Travelling Show People.
To meet this need Warwick District Council (WDC) is committed to allocating sustainable and affordable sites to meet the permanent residential needs of this District's Gypsy and Traveller Community and Travelling Show People through the Local Plan process." [http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20416/evidence_base/733/gypsy_and_traveller_site_allocations]
Given WDC's commitment to meet "permanent residential needs" I am at a loss to understand why a very small group of itinerant, nomadic people loosely referred to as Gypsies and Travellers, who apparently, in general, contribute less to local or national GDP than the majority of people, being the lowest proportion of economically active at 47%, compared with 63% for England and Wales as a whole, should be given special treatment with the provision of transit camps at which they can stop, do a little bit of business, dump their trash and move on. This seems to be completely at odds with the Government's belief, and WDC's obligations and commitment. Moreover, considering HMG, Department for Communities and Local Government, 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide', against the identified sites near Barford, there is a significant mismatch with the Government's advice.
"Gypsy and Traveller families often wish to have small compact and well-managed sites located in areas where they have historically resided and have a network of local family support. Local authorities have in the past tended to provide accommodation in inappropriate areas and the sites have therefore not always been used to their full potential. As with the settled community, Gypsy families prefer clean well-managed sites where there is no fear of retribution from problem families and they can enjoy a peaceful coexistence. [...]. Caution should be used when seeking locations for sites to ensure that they are based on need in a particular area and not the availability of inappropriate land for alternative uses. Traditionally, Gypsy sites have been located on land which is inappropriate for alternative uses and this, in itself, has caused problems both for the Gypsy community and for Site Managers."
Is it racist to say that Gypsy and Traveller camps frequently cause an increase in crime and mess, or is it a statistically supportable statement of fact?
Is the Government's decree to Local Authorities to provide more caravan pitches for Gypsies and Travellers predicated on the view that with more authorised sites there will be less of a problem with land occupied illegally? Is this a policy of appeasement of lawlessness or perhaps a sop to wealthy land owners?
Surely, if people want to spend their lives travelling around in caravans then they must operate within the law and rely on finding people willing to accommodate them - not expect special favours from the state. This politically correct initiative is not only flawed in principle but allows little room for local flexibility where councils are told to find additional sites, even though neighbouring authorities may have surplus sites.
Councils may say that they are forced to carry out the Government's bidding, but that does not excuse genuine consultation and democracy. Simply writing to villagers, and providing displays and meetings, asking how they would feel about a Gypsy and Traveller camp on their patch is only valid if the respondents are acknowledged and their views genuinely considered, even to the extent that it may mean a significant change of plans.
Many decent concerned residents see Gypsies and Travellers as a threat to their peaceful way of life, expressing genuine concern over the impact on crime rates and on the local environment. Is simply expressing such concerns, of itself, unreasonable or racist?
Across Britain there is a grotesque game being played between bureaucrats attempting to force through new sites, against objectors feeling obliged to hire lawyers to make sure submissions do not breach some thought crime which could result in them being disregarded.
Is it racist to say Gypsy and Traveller camps may cause an increase in crime and mess? Not to say that all Gypsies and Travellers are the same - there appears to be an elaborate calibrated class structure with Romany Gypsies looking down on Irish Tinkers who in turn have little time for New Age travellers. It is not right to suggest that all Gypsies and Travellers are criminal or that none of them work for a living.
There is an old fashioned romance for Gypsies which can still exist in reality sometimes, with brightly coloured Gypsy wagons drawn by ponies, and people who undertake honest temporary work for local farmers.
But are there not others who are a complete menace to those in proximity to them? Rather than insulting those who warn of problems, the Government and local authorities should address peoples' concerns.
Obviously, my opinion is epistemological, based on a cursory review of information available through the Internet and observing such people across the country, including, latterly at 'Tournament Fields' [previously an RAF Station and now a housing and business development area], just off the Stratford Road heading southwest out of Warwick.
From the latest (2011) census data just 24% [>14,000] of the 58,000 Gypsy and / or Irish Travellers live in caravans or other mobile or temporary structures. The "Gypsy and Traveller caravan count - January 2011" records:
* The total number of Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England remained broadly level at 18,383 caravans, an increase of 46 caravans since January 2010.
* A total of 6,942 caravans were on authorised public sites, a slight increase of 72 (1%) caravans since the January 2010 an average of 22.2 caravans per site.
* The number of caravans on authorised private sites was 8,332, an increase of 484 (6%) caravans since the January 2010 count - an average of 4.5 caravans per site.
* Caravans on unauthorised developments, on land owned by Gypsies and Travellers, decreased by 195 (8%) to 2,200 since the January 2010 count.
* Caravans on unauthorised encampments, on land not owned by Gypsies and Travellers, decreased by 315 (26%) to 909 since the January 2010 count.
* The average occupancy of an unauthorised encampment is 4.9 caravans per site compared with 3.6 caravans on unauthorised sites on land owned by Gypsies or Travellers.
* Overall, the January 2011 count indicates that 17% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England were on unauthorised land and 83% were on authorised land.
* Overall, the count indicates an increase of around 2,500 Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England and Wales since 2005, with a reduced overall percentage on authorised sites and an increase in those on unauthorised sites, despite a significant increase in provision.
Considering Gypsy or Irish Travellers living in England and Wales[1]
The Office of National Statistics analysis of 2011 Census data in response to which 58,000 people selected the Gypsy or Irish Traveller ethnicity option or wrote the same under the 'Other White' category (excluding people who identify as Roma), made Gypsy or Irish Traveller the smallest ethnic group (surveyed) at 0.1% of the England and Wales population. As an ethnic group, they are recognised under the Equality Act 2010 and considered by government and charities to be a vulnerable marginalised group who suffer from poor outcomes.
A higher proportion of Gypsy or Irish Travellers are under the age of 20 (39%) compared with England and Wales overall (24%) with a lower median age of 26, compared with 39 overall.
99% were born in Europe (including 88% in the UK). Their main language is English (or Welsh in Wales) at 91%, similar to that for England and Wales (92%).
20,500 households identified as Gypsy or Irish Traveller and 60% were one-family households. For all households, 45% had dependent children, above the average for England and Wales (29%).
Nearly a quarter, 24% of Gypsy or Irish Travellers, lived in caravans or other mobile or temporary structures, well above the average for England and Wales as a whole at 0.3%. Whole house or bungalow was the most common type of accommodation at 61%. They were more than twice as likely to live in social housing as the overall population of England and Wales (41% compared with 16%) and less likely to own their accommodation outright (21% compared with 26%).
Gypsy or Irish Travellers had the lowest proportion of people rating their general health as 'very good' or 'good' at 70% compared to 81% of the overall population of England and Wales.
Gypsy or Irish Travellers (over the age of 16) had the highest proportion of no qualifications for any ethnic group at 60%, higher than for England and Wales as a whole (23%).
Just under half of Gypsy or Irish Travellers were economically active; the lowest proportion of economically active at 47%, compared with 63% for England and Wales as a whole. Over half of those who were economically active were employed (51% compared to 75% for the total of England and Wales) and 20% were unemployed (compared to 7% for the whole of England and Wales). They had the highest proportion of self employed out of the ethnic groups at 26% compared to 14% for England and Wales. Just over half were economically inactive; the most common reason was looking after the home or family (27%) which was higher than that for England and Wales (11%).
For Gypsy or Irish Travellers (16 and over) in employment, elementary occupations (such as farm workers, process plant workers or service staff) were the most common type of employment at 22% (11% for England and Wales). The second highest occupation was skilled trades at 19% such as agricultural, electric and building trades, higher than England and Wales and all other ethnic groups.
Gypsies and Travellers seem to carry what some might call, 'myths and stereotypes' which may give rise to the prejudices and fears which even some rational people have with regard to the location of camps. Let's consider the debate more closely:
"Travellers are thieves and criminals"
The response from Gypsy and Traveller advocates is to say that in every community there are individuals who engage in criminal activity, but this should not be grounds for making sweeping assumptions - why should all Gypsies and Travellers be associated with anti-social or criminal behaviour? Just because some Gypsies and Travellers are thieves and criminals, doesn't mean they all are - does it? Campaigners on behalf of Gypsies and Travellers claim there is no evidence of higher crime rates amongst Gypsies and Travellers. Perhaps unintentionally, however, such a claim seems to accept that there is evidence of crime rates amongst Gypsies and Travellers at least at the National Average, a view Police, Local Authorities and the victims of crime at the hands of Gypsies and Travellers might be inclined to agree with. It may be coincidental that when caravans park up in an area, reported crime seems to increase,
One bad apple...
The fear and trepidation as well as the social impact and damage on small communities of even just one determined, itinerant criminal, whether stealing from gardens and outbuildings or breaking into houses and business premises, terrorising individuals, can be harrowing to the point of catastrophic. The impact of organised groups taking valuable metals from roof tops, or more dangerously, cable theft, can be financially injurious, often with the brunt of the impact being felt by Churches, Schools, Local Authority and Business premises. The impact on individuals can be life threatening when cables are stolen from road lighting and signaling systems, or railway premises. The impact on the neighbourhood from adverse news and crime statistics discourages visitors from visiting, particularly damaging in an area where employment and economic viability are heavily dependent on tourism and business start-up and innovation.
It is a matter of fact that settled communities, especially relatively 'comfortable' rural and semi-rural communities, have very low or even negligible crime rates. The visitation of just one or two criminals on such areas can have a devastating impact on people as well as crime rates, and when those events coincide with the presence of Gypsies and Travellers it's hardly surprising that people and authorities might jump to conclusions. The juxtaposition of social itinerant transit facilities adjacent to more affluent neighbourhoods is a recipe for disaster - the potential for harm to the community and a consequential increase in crime rates seems inevitable even to the most charitable mind. Sometimes temptation is just too great, and with the provision of transit facilities, where people can stop, do a little business, and move on, perhaps into the jurisdictions of others, can only serve to fuel the untouchable feeling and behaviour of criminal elements. Furthermore, as groups come and go, not settling permanently, the constant feeling of trepidation caused by the natural human reaction to strangers, renders life uncomfortable.
A low crime rate and social amenability is so much a feature of the Barford area that is was recently rated one of the best places to live in Britain, an accolade it would be unlikely to retain if the crime rate rose, and unsightly and unhealthy dumping became a significant problem.
Does Warwick District council really want to site Gypsies and Travellers at Barford, ranked in the top 10 places to live in the Midlands category of The Sunday Times' annual 101 Best Places to Live in Britain? The guide combines crime rates, house prices and school performances to select places with the best quality of life, good local shops and attractive outdoor spaces.
Warwickshire and particularly Barford has a crime rate significantly below the National Average; introducing even a small number of statistically evident criminals into the area is likely to have a detrimental affect on crime rates, and the peace of mind and security of the neighbourhood and its populous.
Advocates say that constantly referring to encampments as "illegal" furthers the perception that travellers are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the neighbourhoods they live in. But then again, squatting at the side of the road or on private land isn't always legal; if it were legal, then how is it that the law moves them on? Making sites 'legal' on its own will not change the anti-social, and even criminal behaviour of determined villains, regardless of their ethnicity.
Campaigners cite the statistic of Gypsies and Travellers in the prison population, saying there are few in prison, however, a cursory review of Police and Court records will reveal another interesting statistic - the frequency with which Gypsies and Travellers fail to answer summonses, submit to arrest warrants and show up in court. When they do answer charges, the prospect they face may be a guilty verdict, but not necessarily a custodial sentence, and there is also anecdotal evidence that, despite alleged prejudices by the Police towards Gypsies and Travellers, Police tend not to prosecute Gypsies and Travellers for minor offences due to the fact that their itinerant lifestyle means they will simply move on.
Campaigners speculate that it may be that ostracising Travellers from the Settled Community has the effect of pushing them to the margins of society and makes them more vulnerable to poverty and anti-social influences. If that was the case, would Gypsies and Travellers not prefer to settle, and object to the provision of what are effectively transit camps.
They leave rubbish everywhere and destroy the countryside.
Humankind produces huge amounts of waste every day. In every community, there are people who are concerned about doing their part for a clean environment, and those who do not care. Press reports of Gypsy Travellers which fuel the stereotype that they destroy the places they stay always outnumber the very rare reports to the contrary - good neighbours rarely make the news.
Even though site residents pay rent and taxes, they do not enjoy the same rights as people in settled housing. Many sites remain poorly serviced, lack proper sanitation, and waste disposal facilities which leaves residents living in squalid conditions they can do nothing to change.
However, there are also a number of sites which are very well managed and cared for by Travellers and local authorities but that doesn't seem worth highlighting in the press.
Gypsy Travellers do not seek out places to live where they are in poverty without access to basic facilities such as water, electricity, and sanitation. Lack of temporary and permanent sites leaves them with no place to go and pushes many families to resort to the only option available - unauthorised encampments. Those then fan the flames of an already tense relationship between Travellers and the settled community resulting in stress and evictions.
Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are also entitled to culturally appropriate housing that matches their lifestyle.
Due to the lack of interaction between the communities, the media is often the only source of information. Sadly, many journalists are passionate about pursuing negative portrayals of Travellers.
Evidence provided to Select Committee on the importance of site location:
"What is working [in Ireland] are small sites. And they are not placed under flyovers or pylons, or beside sewers, canals or tips; they are placed on proper positioned land, bang within the middle of a settled community, and they are working."
"We would make a strong plea for safeguards to be put in place to ensure that future site development is not located in polluted or hazardous locations, as... many sites are. Not only does this have a negative impact on Gypsies and Travellers health and access to services but it has a profound impact on how they feel they are perceived and treated by the wider community, likewise such locations reinforce the prejudiced perceptions that many in the settled community have of Gypsies and Travellers, such locations are therefore a major impediment to social inclusion.
[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/what-does-the-2011-census-tell-us-about-the-characteristics-of-gypsy-or-irish-travellers-in-england-and-wales-/sty-gypsy-or-irish-travellers.html
I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration.

GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road (WDC Alternative Site) is totally unsuitable for a development of this sort. Here are our reasons as to why
Close to M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues.
Already difficulty to exit village on A52 safely
Flooding issues on Mallory Road
Proximity to Village Incompatible with wanting to live apart from settled community.
Small village facilities-part time surgery, single form entry primary school
Visual impact on area I believe will be negative and bring into question the need for Blight notices to be served
The school cannot facilitate the children and any special needs due to it being small and one form per year
Im concerned about noise generated from site
Main road into village already dangerous without this community racing horses and carts down it as they did recently on the A46
In 1992 all BT residents were compensated for noise pollution due to siting of M40 - where is the compensation for this.
GT05 is closer to M40 than BT village. By the precedent set for compensation this
makes the site unsuitable for Caravans due to noise. A452 is a main arterial route to
M40(s) and to Gaydon Site from Leamington /Warwick making this an extremely
Too busy a road especially during morning and evening rush hour to be worsened by 10000 homes being built
Totally unsuitable to use good grade agricultural land. Will have developmental impact on the
approach to the village.
Exit onto the lane and or main road will be dangerous. Too close proximity to houses.
Too much of a vast open space
Compulsory purchase is unfair in order for the G&T community to operate the site as
a business.
No mains set up
No footpath to school/ docs etc.
Not suitable for business use and detriment to local businesses.
I run a business from the village and im afraid the stigma of such a site could affect my own business that sells to families.
I also run Warwickshire Hedgehog Rescue and we have released countless of these endangered animals into this location, and subsequent poor rubbish disposal as already demonstrated by these people elsewhere locally will harm wildlife.
School and Local GP surgery already oversubscribed
Only 10 minute walk from Oakley Wood (via wide verge) and opposite guide dogs
breeding centre, so not a good idea
Accident blackspot
Reputation damage to our primary school
The access from the farmers drive there is a blind spot at the brow of the hill so very
dangerous for pulling out of and turning into

GT06 Land at Park Farm, Spinney Farm (WDC Alternative Site)
Would harm the rural buffer zone and destroy the visual amenity on the approach to
Warwick
Severely restricts access for the owner of park farm to his remaining land
Proximity to major roads A452 and A425 with accompanying road noise pollution and
access issues
Adverse effect on viability of the farm business
Adverse visual impact on the countryside
Owner not willing to sell - expense of compulsory purchase
GT15 Land to east of Europa Way (WDC Preferred Site)
Access onto Europa Way would be dangerous
BT would have to serve the community but capacity at school is questionable
Doctors surgery is already under pressure
No bus route into Bishops Tachbrook Warwick or Leamington
GT15 is opposite busy trunk feeder
Minimal visual impact
Heavily wooded - no facilities
Steep sloping ground
Road access would need improving
Busy road
Only small site and therefore more sites needed (no doubt in Tachbrook)
No pavements
On motorway feeder
Not on bus route
On busy road accompanying road noise and pollution and access issues
Concerns over flooding and water contamination into the brook
Would require clearing woodland
After Brookside Willows, it does however appear to be the most suitable site
Screen from road
Close to Leamington for doctors and schools etc
Land owned by Council
Traffic calming measures
GTalt01 Brookside Willows, Banbury Road (WDC Preferred Site) is a site I could back and agree that is suitable and manged by an external provider ie housing association not by the gypsies themselves
Ideal location well screened
Site already part prepared
Good road access
Needs a safe pedestrian footpath into Warwick
No immediate neighbours
Infrastructure already in place
Well away from main road
Preferred site
Good access to site already there
Easy access to Warwick Town by Public transport/ on foot
Less traffic that other main roads locally
Reused ground - no flooding
Good site
Planning for Caravan Site anyway: minimal difference and therefore costs are lower
Facilities already in existence
No compulsory purchase necessary
Minimum development needed for occupation
Planning permission approved for a caravan park
* More suitable that some of the alternatives

I object to the following proposed gypsy and traveller sites for the reasons set out below:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way
* 'The site is currently the home ground of Leamington Football Club.' Whilst the Football Club may be amenable to the sale of the land for a Gypsy and Traveller site the local people who support the team would have to travel a lot further to the ground, thus increasing traffic levels. It would also be a costly move for the Club which the District Council would have to subsidise.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to a public foul mains sewer, but could drain away from the south or be served by a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* It is in a very rural location, not connected to any footpaths and thus dangerous for access except by car.
GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
* The site is in very close proximity to Bishop's Tachbrook School. As such it presents potential problems with school premises security as the transient nature of those living on the site may mean it isn't known who is living there at any given time. This has implications for the application of 'Sara's Law'.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village. The consultation document states that, 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* There is currently a planning application for settled housing on this site which could be jeopardised by this site application. The Local Plan requires housing for both settled and travelling populations and by allocating this land for travellers, few settled people could be housed.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* The village has limited local facilities in general with just a single shop currently operating. This site would lead to additional traffic into Warwick and Leamington on already busy roads.
* The site is located close to the M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues which makes it unsuitable for residential development. This site is adjacent to a bad junction where there have already been a number of accidents.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Tachbrook Hill Farm. The economic viability of the farm could be compromised.
GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm
* The site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'
* The consultation document highlights that, 'Use of just a central section of the site for this use may cause problems for a viable agricultural unit as it dissects fields'.
* The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.
* The location of the site, on a major route into historic Warwick, could have an adverse impact on the rural landscape and approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction.
* The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues 'There are unknown contamination issues relating to a former landfill site on western third of site which reduces the developable area.' This makes the size of the site less viable than other sites.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Park Farm/Spinney Farm. The economic viability of the farms could be compromised.

GT15: Land east of Europa Way
* The site's proximity to the A452, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes.
* The A452 is a main route into Leamington for commuter traffic and access onto this road would be dangerous, with high potential for accidents.
* There are no footpaths connecting this site which would either force pedestrians to make dangerous journeys by foot or increase traffic congestion along an already congested route.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village and adding this site to the catchment area would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* As the site is in the ownership of Warwickshire County Council, this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.
GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road
* The Tach Brook runs alongside this site and thus there is concern over the potential contamination of the Brook and the River Avon.
* As a previous landfill site there will be contaminants which may make the site unsuitable for permanent residential use (versus the holiday caravan site there is currently planning permission for).
* This site does have footpath access to the town of Warwick and the facilities and amenities therein.
* The site is well screened from the road and as much of the infrastructure is in place this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.

I object to the following proposed gypsy and traveller sites for the reasons set out below:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way
* 'The site is currently the home ground of Leamington Football Club.' Whilst the Football Club may be amenable to the sale of the land for a Gypsy and Traveller site the local people who support the team would have to travel a lot further to the ground, thus increasing traffic levels. It would also be a costly move for the Club which the District Council would have to subsidise.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to a public foul mains sewer, but could drain away from the south or be served by a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* It is in a very rural location, not connected to any footpaths and thus dangerous for access except by car.
GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm
* The site is in very close proximity to Bishop's Tachbrook School. As such it presents potential problems with school premises security as the transient nature of those living on the site may mean it isn't known who is living there at any given time. This has implications for the application of 'Sara's Law'.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village. The consultation document states that, 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* There is currently a planning application for settled housing on this site which could be jeopardised by this site application. The Local Plan requires housing for both settled and travelling populations and by allocating this land for travellers, few settled people could be housed.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* The village has limited local facilities in general with just a single shop currently operating. This site would lead to additional traffic into Warwick and Leamington on already busy roads.
* The site is located close to the M40 and A452 with accompanying noise pollution and access issues which makes it unsuitable for residential development. This site is adjacent to a bad junction where there have already been a number of accidents.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Tachbrook Hill Farm. The economic viability of the farm could be compromised.
GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm
* The site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'
* The consultation document highlights that, 'Use of just a central section of the site for this use may cause problems for a viable agricultural unit as it dissects fields'.
* The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.
* The location of the site, on a major route into historic Warwick, could have an adverse impact on the rural landscape and approach to Warwick Castle tourist attraction.
* The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues 'There are unknown contamination issues relating to a former landfill site on western third of site which reduces the developable area.' This makes the size of the site less viable than other sites.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* 'Compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward.' This would add additional cost to the planning process and also damage the feasibility of the agricultural employment currently being provided by Park Farm/Spinney Farm. The economic viability of the farms could be compromised.
GT15: Land east of Europa Way
* The site's proximity to the A452, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes.
* The A452 is a main route into Leamington for commuter traffic and access onto this road would be dangerous, with high potential for accidents.
* There are no footpaths connecting this site which would either force pedestrians to make dangerous journeys by foot or increase traffic congestion along an already congested route.
* Bishop's Tachbrook School is already oversubscribed with children living in the village and adding this site to the catchment area would disadvantage other permanent residents of the village as the transient nature of the gypsy and traveller lifestyle is such that the children may only be living on the site for a small proportion of the school year yet the school could be required to keep that place open for the whole year.
* The consultation document states, 'It is unlikely that the site could connect to public foul mains sewer and would need a non-mains solution.' Given the issues Warwick District has experienced in the past with disposal of human waste by gypsies and travellers a non-mains solution is not appropriate for this community and a site able to be connected to the mains sewer should be preferred.
* The consultation document refers to the GP surgery in the village but this is only open part time. The higher level health needs of the gypsy and traveller community could potentially overwhelm the existing service.
* As the site is in the ownership of Warwickshire County Council, this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.
GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road
* The Tach Brook runs alongside this site and thus there is concern over the potential contamination of the Brook and the River Avon.
* As a previous landfill site there will be contaminants which may make the site unsuitable for permanent residential use (versus the holiday caravan site there is currently planning permission for).
* This site does have footpath access to the town of Warwick and the facilities and amenities therein.
* The site is well screened from the road and as much of the infrastructure is in place this site could be in place more quickly than other sites.

Please see below my comments in reference to the following sites:

GT04: Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way - Object

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Cost to move the football club would have to be subsidised by the District Council, this will be a costly exercise with no gain.

GT05: Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm - Object

- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- The site is in close proximity to Bishops Tachbrook School and will therefore have implications for the application of "Sara's Law".

- Extra pressure will be put on the local facilities, small local shop.

- Additional traffic would end up using the already congested roads into Warwick and South Leamington

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- Site is located close to the M40, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and access issues, at an already busy junction.

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Tachbrook Hill Farm may be compromised.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".


GT06: Land at Park Farm/Spinney Farm - Object

- There is the potential for viable agricultural fields to be dissected, through use of only the "central section" of the site.

- The consultation document points out that whilst the site is within Flood Zone 1, 'There is however an ordinary watercourse running through the centre of the site and along the eastern boundary for which no modelling has been undertaken. This could affect the capacity of the site for development and therefore further assessment needs to be undertaken prior to allocation.' The potential contamination of this watercourse from the gypsy and traveller site should be taken into consideration given the possibility of contamination of the River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable.

- Again the site's proximity to major roads A452 and A425, with accompanying road noise pollution and access issues make this site unsuitable for residential purposes. The consultation document states, 'There may also be noise issues connected with proximity to Warwick By-Pass depending on where exactly the site is located'

- "Compulsory purchase powers" required on this site would further increase the costs to the planning process. In addition the economic viability of Park Farm/Spinney Farm may be compromised.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

GT15: Land east of Europa Way - Object


- Bishops Tachbrook School is already over subscribed, however the consultation document states that 'Children living on this site would secure places over children at a greater distance.' This disadvantages other permanent residents in the village.

- There are no footpaths connecting to this site, therefore pedestrian access will be dangerous as peak travel times, with the potential for increased accidents.

- Increased level of healthcare required by the Gypsy and Traveller community will put pressure on the local GP Surgery, which currently only runs on a part time basis.

- There has not been an appropriate solution found in reference to the Sewerage Disposal. A mains connected sewer is preferable, but it is stated in the consultation document that this is "unlikely".

- Site is located close to a busy road, this makes it unsuitable for residential development due to noise pollution and there are access issues, at an already busy junction/main road into Leamington and Warwick.

GTalt01: Brookside Willows, Banbury Road - Comments

- This site does have footpath access to the town centre of Warwick and its facilities.

- The Tachbrook runs along this site and therefore there may be potential contamination of the Brook and River Avon.

- The consultation document highlights possible contamination issues relating to a former landfill site, this will reduce the developable area, making the site less viable and unsuitable for residential use.

- The site is well screened from the road and more of the infrastructure is already in place.

- This site already has planning for a Caravan Site

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached