GT19 Land at Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (green)

I wish to object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites GTalt03 and GT19.

Both sites are in the green belt and no special circumstances have been demonstrated to suggest that development should be allowed on either plot.

The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts. The allocation of these sites will go against that guidance.

Apart from arguing & stating the green belt policy principle, it is also worthwhile reinforcing that the development would in actual fact as well as in policy terms be inappropriate - it would 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' (The appraisal notes that GT alt03 in particular is open). Arguments for the value of the sites in terms of how their contribution to the green belt - contributing to 'openness' and to separating urban areas from each other are also relevant here. Furthermore development on the sites would be prominent/visually intrusive and the recommendation of an owner is not a relevant variable in the context of Green Belt policy.

I urge you not to consider either of these sites any further and abandon your proposals. There are a number of "brownfield" sites in the County which are more appropriate.

As a resident of Hatton Park I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development at the above site, this would significantly degrade the area also the road conditions are totally unsuitable.

Whilst one assumes there are some obligations to provide such facilities, they should however be away from residential areas and located on brown field sites only.

On the basis that this is a highly charged and emotive issue and we live in a democratic society , I propose that any decisions are postponed until after the next council elections to enable all residents to vote on the issue.

I would like to formally object to the option of having the Gypsies and Travellers site located at the following area:

GT19 - Land off Birmingham Rd, Budbrooke, Oaklands Farm
I note in your appendix 2 from the formal council meeting that you deem this site to be a good option for the site (and have given it a 'green' rating).
In doing so, I can only assume you have ignored all your own stated criteria for such an assessment and have decided to ignore the valid points already highlighted as objections (shown below to remind you):
* Green Belt land that should be preserved
* Would destroy countryside
* Access onto main road will increase traffic hazards. Notoriously
difficult and dangerous road with speeds in excess of 40mph
limit and bend in road limiting visibility
* Close to heavily populated urban area and highly visible so not in
keeping with locality
* Distracting to passing motorists
* Schools are oversubscribed
* Canal bridge suffers from subsidence and unsuitable for heavy
vehicles and very narrow for caravans
* Site has been breaching law for years with caravans occupying
the site. To legalise is sending a bad message
* Potential for unauthorised expansion
* Negative effect on property values
* Unattractive on approach to Warwick
* Effect on tourism
* Grand Union Canal recently upgraded towpath and locks are
popular with walkers, family groups, canal cruisers and anglers
* Direct access to the Canal from at least two points at Oaklands
Farm. Leakage of noise and waste onto canal bank
* Impact on important features of natural and historic
environment
* GP surgery already stretched
* Dentists at capacity
* Any further development to small community on Birmingham
Road will spoil quality of life
* Should be well away from existing communities
* Would hamper any future development of housing
* Possibility of ribbon development in green belt
* Close to railway lines and bridges
* Close to petrol station with dangers of waiting vehicles on road,
fumes, emissions and pollutants
* Effect on cleanliness and tidiness of canal and towpath
I therefore would like to formally add my objections to this site as a local resident for all the reasons outlined above.

I would like to lodge my objections to the proposed traveler site on Birmingham Road (reference GT19).

Impact on local infrastructure and facilities:

For some reason that is entirely unclear, this consultation process is being carried out independently of the proposed development of the circa 100 houses in the field opposite. Surely, the combined effects of both proposed developments on the local infrastructure and facilities should be taken into account simultaneously, for example the impact on the roads, local schools and utilities.

The Birmingham Road is fast moving and the extra traffic would undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the traffic flow and safety. In fact, this road is prone to flooding, there is already considerable rush hour congestion and it has been the scene of two fatalities recently.

The site is intended to be located between a National Trust canal and a busy road, so it seems clear that the safety of the children would be at risk. Have the National Trust been consulted on environmental effects this could have to the popular site?

The local school system is already under pressure and suffering very poor results. For example, I understand that Budbrooke school has recently gone into special measures. Surely, an influx of children, many of whom are likely to require more attention, will not help this situation and I presume no extra funding is provided for support.

Suitability of the proposed site:

The proposed site is on Green Belt land. It is my understanding that central government require there to be genuinely 'exceptional circumstances' to build on Green Belt land. I have seen no evidence of such 'exceptional circumstances' in this case.

It is also my understanding that there is inconsistency in the criteria applied for this proposal as compared to those applied in rejecting other development proposals. For example, the proximity of the site to the canal should be one ground for rejecting this proposal as it has been with other development proposals. In fact, the close proximity to the canal would pose a danger to the children residing on the site. In addition, I understand that a previous request for storing caravans on the proposed site was rejected by Warwick District Council, yet for some unknown reason it is now deemed appropriate for travellers.

It is also entirely unclear why this site is considered more appropriate than the Kites Nest site rejected recently, which is very much more isolated and not on a main road. The proposed site, on the other hand, would be very visible from the road and from the canal, so occupants would be overlooked.

I also understand that the Kites Nest site was actually owned by the development proposer, while this proposal would involve the use of tax payer funds in a compulsory purchase of the land. This seems entirely unfair to both the taxpayer and indeed the landowner, particularly as the proposed site puts his longstanding businesses at risk and reduces the value of the remaining land.

In fact, does this not expose the council to a claim for compensation?

Consultation period:

As a final point, this consultation is being carried out very rapidly and follows recent statements to some residents that there would be no such proposals in the foreseeable future. This consultation appears to compromise the rights of residents under the new Localism Bill of 2011, and is completely inconsistent with the time scale for the provision of the traveller site, which is stated to be as long as five years.

I should be grateful if the above points are taken into account when considering this proposal.

The closer to May 5th we get the more I worry about your proposal to put a permanent travellers site at the location you define as GT19. I feel it is really not adequate in any way, I would not like to live between a canal & a very busy main road & certainly not to bring up children in that environment. It would be very unhealthy to have children breathing in the air between these two polluted areas. Will there be a GP surgery large enough to deal with all the ensuing health issues? Will there still be room for the Camping & Caravan Club ( or the Caravan & Camping Club, you quote both in the booklet issued ) or will this now be a loss of business for the area? Will there be any proviso in the contract for the area to be kept clean & tidy, if it isn't who pays for it? Is it really going to be good for Warwick's tourist industry for traffic to be able to view this on the way to Warwick? As the road is so much higher than the site it cannot be screened. How is it going to be screened from the canal, yet another industry that brings money into the area?

This is meant to be green belt is it not. To suddenly have five more families living on the Birmingham Road just there will somewhat overwhelm the people that already live there. The entrance to the proposed site will not be off the main road as you put in your printed plan but on the corner of the main road & Ugly Bridge Road. This will be an accident waiting to happen. The Birmingham Road has already had several fatal accidents in the last few years plus many more collisions how on earth do you propose to keep it safe enough for heavy lorries & caravans to slow down & turn in or across the traffic into Ugly Bridge Road & then block both The Birmingham Road & Ugly Bridge Road while the steep turn is negotiated on a very frequent basis? I am aware you had a traffic consultant to view this area but were they given the correct information to assess this situation, dare I ask, were they the consultants used to redesign the High Street/Jury Street change, if so I'm afraid I would give them a vote of no confidence.

If you care to look at the bigger picture, you are also proposing to build 70/90 more houses on Hatton Park, the Birmingham Road is going to be more of a disaster area then than it is now! How are you proposing to deal with the massive traffic jams that are going to develop, it's bad enough now but by the time you have added another 200 cars from Hatton Park plus the travellers site traffic leaving at the same time the rush hour will be a complete nightmare of your making.

I am aware the Council will request payment of Council Tax from the travellers, it will be interesting to see if you ever receive it, will the travellers families be fined £60 every time they take their children out of school or are they exempt from this? If both the GT19 site goes ahead & the 70/90 houses are built on Hatton Park will we all drop down a band of Council Tax to compensate for all aggravation we will have to put up with once this wonderful area becomes noisy & busy, I believe most people have bought houses here purely because of it's present situation, we now will have the noise from the extended runway at Birmingham Airport, the chaos caused by the siting of the travellers site plus more houses built to add to the melee. What has the Council got against Hatton Park?

I do so hope you reconsider the siting of both the travellers site & the extra housing. You are meant to be custodians of Warwick, please do not overstep the mark.

I would like to object to the above mentioned site on the following grounds:-

1) in the criteria it says avoid areas there could be adverse impact on important feature of the natural and historic environment.
This site is directly overlooked from the Hatton Main Line canal the Hatton flight is a noted tourist attraction and historic site. Both from the canal users point of view and as a tourist attraction there is a lock adjacent to the site with the tow path on the same side as the proposed site It is a very popular walk for local residents with many families walking from Warwick to the top of the flight where there is an excellent cafe and the Hatton Arms which provides outdoor facilities. A further circular walk is available to the Hatton Craft centre.
2) There is no way that the site could be screened from the adjacent canal which is elevated all the way down the flight and would provide a birds eye view of the proposed site.
3) The present use of the site by the Caravan and Campling Club is on a very small scale there can be no comparison between a caravan parked for a short space of time to that of permanent pitches with the possiblity of wooden structures not to mention sheds refuse bins and commercial vehicles white vans cars etc Anyone who walked past the illegal site in Kites Nest Lane will have a very good idea of the permanent impact on the surrounding area even five pitches would make. The noise and amount of activity cannot be underestimated. Although on a main road it is still a peaceful and country location in the Green Belt. The A4700 is a very busy road especially at commuter times any further activity with vehicles accessing and leaving the proposed site would only increase the difficulties already encountered by road users.

As a resident of Hatton Park I am writing to express my concern with regard to the suggested/proposed developments not only in my area but in Warwick as a whole.
I am not convinced that the area can sustain the suggested/proposed developments taking into account additional medical services, schools, sewerage, and many other environmental issues. Having said that I acknowledge that more homes are needed in the area to cater for young people in particular.
I suggest that there may well be sites which I suppose could be referred to as brownfield sites which surely must be considered before any development of greenbelt land and from my fairly limited knowledge of the area I would suggest there maybe suitable buildings for refurbishment into homes rather than offices.
I strongly protest at development of greenbelt land until such time as these other options have been explored in detail.
With regard to the development in Hatton Park I am not totally opposed to the suggested 80/90 house being built although I am if there are not a substantial number of starter homes since to provide accommodation for young people will increase the possibility of making the area more vibrant BUT even this cannot be done until there are additional medical and schooling facilities provided or earmarked for the immediate future and certainly available for when the development has been built.
With regard to the proposed traveler site on the Birmingham Road I strongly object to this for a number of reasons. Firstly the Birmingham Road is a very busy road and even with a small number of caravans there will be increased vehicle activity in that are of the road which has already had 2 fatalities in recent years as well as a number of less serious collisions. Secondly between such a busy road and water is not a safe place to have what may be unsupervised children. Thirdly presumably more school places and medical services will have to be provided in addition to those required if the other local development takes place. Fourthly is there anyway that the Council are able to confirm to the general public that these travelers will be responsible for Council Tax and such like since as you will appreciate there is a general perception that little or nothing is paid out by these travellers and by addressing this perhaps their presence maybe just a little more acceptable however the site is not really appropriate.
Much more thought needs to be given to this

I wish to register my objection to the proposal to choose the Oaklands Farm Site as one of the permanent G and T sites in the district for the following reasons:

1. The site is in green belt and National Planning Policy requires exceptional reasons for such a location to be developed in such a way. This has been reinforced recently by statements from government ministers. No exceptional reasons have been offered.
2. The site would, I believe require a Compulsory Purchase Order. The use of these to provide these sites has also been thought inappropriate by government ministers.
3. The site has a history of planning applications to carry out the type of activities that the site would be used for as a Gypsy and Traveller site. Almost all of these have been being refused by the same Planning Department that is proposing the sites use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. The previously developed land argument was not applicable in these cases.
4. The site is on a very busy and demonstrably dangerous road. The access to and from the site would add to the problems on the road. This extra danger would be to the residents as well as the general travelling public.
5. The road frequently floods, without the addition of run-off from the hard standings that would be needed.
6. The site is very close to the canal, leading to danger to the children of the residents
7. The amenity of the flight of locks on the canal would be impaired by the siting of the site here.
8. The already heavily strained local infrastructure of schooling, health and local road congestion will already be further impaired by the allocation of extra housing at Hampton Magna and at Hatton Park. To add to the strain in this area would be irresponsible.
9. The addition of this potentially semi industrial site to the northern access route to Warwick would affect the tourist potential of the town.

Similarly, I would like to object to the alternate site at the junction of Hampton Road and Henley Road, Hampton on the Hill for these reasons:

1. The site is in the green belt and National Planning Policy requires exceptional reasons for such a location to be developed in such a way. This has been reinforced recently by statements from government ministers. No exceptional reasons have been offered.
2. The site has recently been the subject of an application for its use by a Gypsy family and this application was rejected by the District Council, a decision confirmed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
3. One of the reasons that the inspector put great weight on was the dangerous access considering that its use by a single family would generate significantly more traffic movements than its previous use in agriculture, particularly given the nature of the road. This would be very greatly amplified with the number of families using the site increased to five.
4. Another point in the original decision was that the site had an imposing position on the entrance route to Warwick.
5. The already heavily strained local infrastructure of schooling, health and local road congestion will already be further impaired by the allocation of extra housing at Hampton Magna and at Hatton Park. To add to the strain in this area would be irresponsible.
6. There are high voltage electricity cables crossing the site leading to possible danger to residents children.

To whom it may concern
Regarding the consultation on the Preferred Options Sites for Gypsy and Travellers, I refer you to my below comments:
2. History: How we got to this point
2.4 -OBJECTION
The assessment from Salford University contains no adequate "demonstration of the need for 31 pitches", the public was not consulted in its production and as the
sole basis of the Council's policy, it is unreliable and unsound.
2.8 - OBJECT
The sentence "extending the number of pitches on a site would be subject to a planning application and sites would then be assessed for any constraints and restrictions" seems to leave open the possibility of adding the number of pitches at a later date through the planning process not only a possibility but also exposes this entire process to abuse and manipulation and offering local residents no certainty.
Please confirm that the pitch numbers stated in this document will not be exceeded in future.

I am writing to advise you of my objection to the aforementioned proposed traveller's site based on the following criteria.


Impact on the green belt: It is my understanding that this site is in the green belt and that the government guidelines state that there must be "very exceptional circumstances" in order to use such sites.


Impact on Landscape character: The Birmingham Road is an extensive stretch of beautiful countryside, with very occasional housing visible from the road and some local public houses. The site has already begun to look in a state of disarray and if the proposal gets approved this will only get worse. I recently went for a walk near to the site and discovered a caravan on a public pathway being lived in, and a child defecating in the middle of the pathway. This is not the kind of image we wish to be subjected to.


Ability of infrastructure requirements to be adequately met: There is one shop for the local area and the local school, Ferncumbe Primary is already oversubscribed, having to introduce strict criteria in order to prioritise entry. Additionally, the junction of the road with Ugly Bridge Road, adjacent to the proposed site is a notorious traffic accident black spot, with more people and more vehicles in the area this will only get worse.


Impact on ecology: The area being such a rural zone, there are numerous farms in the area, and various wildlife present in the area, which are likely to affected by this.


Impact on land contamination, noise and other disturbance: As previously mentioned, the site is in a rural area, with very little residual noise, and multiple families residing on the site will increase this dramatically. Traffic as mentioned above will also increase. This particular area is already greatly affected by traffic jams in both directions at peak time, and additional vehicles, especially turning into the site, will only make this worse.


Impact on visual amenity including the visibility and character of the site and surrounding area: Please see point above "impact on landscape character". Additionally, the local Hatton Locks site is an historical site which is a great tourist attraction - this would be affected by the proposed site being located in such close proximity.


Distance to GP surgeries, schools, dentists, hospitals, shops and community facilities: The nearest GP surgery is in Budbrooke and is over 1.6miles away, beyond that the nearest surgery is in Warwick, over 2.5 miles away. Ferncumbe Primary is the nearest school and this is 2 miles away, and as previously mentioned, already oversubscribed. The nearest dentist is over 3 miles away, as is the hospital, and there is only the village shop in Hatton Village itself. There are very limited facilities within the area, and these facilities would not be able to cope with additional residents.


Proximity to other residential properties: There are a number of houses directly on the Birmingham road, and there are two housing terraces with a small number of houses, as a resident of one such house, we would be overwhelmed and outnumbered by the arrival of so many additional families.
Potential for the proposal to utilise previously developed land: The proposed site has not been developed for this purpose. This land has already been designed for a purpose which would be more suited to the area - a cattery and kennels and sales of log for fires. With a large proportion of the houses in the local area utilising wood burning fires, this site would be better served by renovating the existing facilities for the original purposes. This would be beneficial to the local economy as well as not being detrimental to the local area. From a personal perspective as my wife will shortly be rescuing a cat, having a cattery in such close proximity would be far more useful to us than a traveller site.


Additionally, the landowner does not want to release the land and I do not think a compulsory purchase of this land for this purpose is the best use of local resources, at a time when public services are constantly being cut due to lack of financing. I would rather see this money put to improving the public transport services in the area.

I strongly oppose the use of the land on the Birmingham Road to accommodate travellers. My first concern is the schooling issue. Yes, Budbrooke and Ferncumbe have both added classrooms to their sites, however, as a parent of a pupil at Ferncumbe and a volunteer at Budbrooke, I have a bit of an insider's view into the schools, which the council may not have. Yes, you have access to the schools "on paper", but is completely different from actually spending time inside the school walls on a regular basis. Both schools are full and are at, in my opinion, capacity. Having seen the use of the school halls from an insider's point of view, there is not room to simply "add on" more classrooms, as has been done already at both schools. I have been in both Budbrooke's and Ferncumbe's halls whilst they serve as the canteens, and I can assure you that THEY ARE AT CAPACITY. Both schools had accommodation issues with their Christmas productions and issued 2 admission tickets per family. THEY ARE AT CAPACITY.

My final reason for objecting this particular site is due to the proposed drastic dynamic change of the street. There are currently 14 dwellings and a further 5 dwellings would alter the current neighbourhood dynamics far too significantly.

I wrote to you on the 10th April in respect of the above and asked for an acknowledgement of the letter which I have not received.
In case the letter has been mislaid within your offices as, I suspect many may given the volume which I assume you would receive I copy the letter below for your information.
To facilitate your own endeavours I have tried to follow your own list of points which seem to me to automatically exclude this site.
Incidentally are you aware the your Traveller Friends have set up camp in the Parkway Station Car-park in Budbrooke? Are you taking action before they turn the place into a rubbish tip and health hazard. If I did what they do you would prosecute me without a second thought so why are they receiving specially privileged treatment?
I am appalled that the Council should even be considering allowing development in these two places.
Firstly the area is in green belt where already the Hatton Park Development has put a severe strain upon local resources. The primary schools at Budbrooke and Ferncombe are full. The Budbrooke School is in Special Measures and thus really does not need an additional burden put upon it.
There is a traffic Jam in the mornings often from the Hatton Arms to the A46 roundabout without adding more traffic to the problem. The road is otherwise a fast and dangerous road which needs no more traffic but will grow anyway without additional housing.
At present a lot of the traffic between the Birmingham Road and Hampton on the Hill/ Henley Road uses Ugly Bridge Road/ Woodway Lane and Church Lane as a shortcut Including heavy goods lorries which exceed the weight limit on Ugly Bridge and are destroying the Road surface in Ugly Bridge Road and Church Lane. This can only get worse with an increase in traffic on the Birmingham Road driving people to find short cuts. Given the size of some of these vehicles it can't be long before there is either a serious accident or the bridge collapses under their weight. Presumably this would cost the ratepayers a fortune in damages to the water board. This is a narrow road and unsuited to further traffic, particularly heavy lorries. The other week a huge articulated lorry was stuck trying to get round the bends by Ugly Bridge - far too heavy for the bridge weight limit but he had to go on because he couldn't turn to go back.
The Roads department has appreciated that there is a problem and have put up additional weight limit signs. Unfortunately they have put them close to the railway bridge in Old Budbrooke Road, rather than the Canal Bridge onUgly Bridge Road, where they now serve as another monument to Council waste.
You are then talking of a Traveller site at Oaklands Farm by the Shell Station. This would involve a number of vehicles pulling on and off onto an already busy road right next to a Road Junction and the entrance to the Shell Station. As a matter of common sense this would seem entirely inappropriate and the thought of children popping out of the existing entrance unannounced into a busy junction where people are trying to negotiate heavy and fast traffic really doesn't bear thinking about.
It would also put an unsightly encampment in full view of one of the major routes into Warwick as well as next to the major tourist attraction of the Hatton Locks. There may be worse places to sight a Gypsy encampment but it is difficult to perceive them.
There are usually children running around these encampments and here they would be at risk from drowning in the canal, being hit by cars in the daytime and probably also by high speed bikers in the evening.
The site is in fairly plain view of the canal path and it would be difficult to screen it without cutting the size of the site drastically thus making it not worthwhile.
As we have had the doubtful pleasure of a Traveller caravan just opposite Ugly Bridge Road for a few days, recently, it is clear from the rubbish left behind, that an encampment would be dirty, unsightly and probably unhealthy. (Whilst waiting in Ugly Bridge Road to turn onto the Birmingham Road on the Saturday morning, a child wandered out of the caravan there, pulled down her trousers and urinated in the middle of the pathway in front of the caravan. Not surely recommended from a Health and Safety point of view and presumably a dereliction of duty by the parents in permitting it.)
Frankly I do not see why WDC should have the expense of making available sites to Travellers who neither subscribe to rates and probably pay no taxes either. Perhaps, before entering a site they should be asked to provide a copy of their last tax assessment and photo ID to prove their identity failing which their assets could be impounded until they provided such proof. I understand that something similar is done in Ireland.
I would suggest that the area around the Birmingham Road is already congested enough and does not require the addition of further vehicles to an already busy road which would undoubtedly result in further fatalities. Adding a Traveller encampment would make a bad situation worse as their children and animals could potentially stray onto the road and cause accidents.
Add to this the disruption that these developments would have on the local area and they become even less desirable. It is also possible that some of the housing development may be established on the site of the Plague Pits where the victims of the Black Death and subsequent plagues were buried. These are purported to be on the Hatton Park side of the Birmingham Road up towards the old Hospital site.
The congestion on the Birmingham Road has been getting steadily worse and the road into Warwick from the A46 island is usually solid both ways at rush hours making it difficult for ratepayers and other workers to get to and from their workplaces.
I understand that Government has issued a supplemental statement indicating that " 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."
One other consideration should be taken into account and that is the dispersal of flood water in the area. It appears to me that the water table locally has already risen over the past ten years and the addition of a further sizeable development will undoubtedly add to the problem of loose surface water and lack of ability of the land to absorb the run off from the roads etc. It would also presumably put a great strain on the existing floodwater drainage system which must already be under stress due to the fact that the Hatton Park Estate must drain into a level drainage system with little fall.
Budbrooke/Hatton is a rural community without the resources to cope with a huge influx of people and traffic without the expenditure of very considerable sums on infrastructure and even then is, in my view, totally unsuitable for either of the proposed developments.
Your planning document sets out criteria for assessing Gypsy sites:-
"Proposals to develop land for use as Gypsy and Traveller Sites will be assessed against the following Criteria:
* Impact on the green belt - Whilst not necessarily obvious the impact would be huge - putting an eyesore next to Greenbelt Land
* Impact on Landscape character - The impact on the character of the area would be disproportionate to the benefits provided. The site, as it now is, is relatively unnoticeable. Putting 5 caravans and attendant vehicles on the site would make it extremely noticeable and unsightly. Judging by the appearance of the Kite's Nest site in Beausale it would blight the area completely.
* Impact on heritage assets and the settings of heritage assets - Being placed immediately next to the Grand Union Canal and highly visible the value of the heritage asset would be greatly diminished. One surmises that people would be less likely to use this heritage asset due to the proximity of the traveller encampment.
* Impact on designated areas of nature conservation Flooding issues - The site is low lying and if further housing were to be built opposite the surface water is likely to raise the water table further which could result in flooding to this site. One assumes that there would anyway be a runoff problem from the site itself because it is low lying with little natural drainage.
* Ability of infrastructure requirements to be adequately met - The drainage problem is discussed in your own review - hard standing for caravans and vehicles would just make the situation worse.
* Impact on ecology - Based on the observation of the temporary, unauthorised, traveller site in the entrance opposite it would seem likely that rubbish would be scattered hither and thither and probably in the canal as well so the ecological effect would be extremely negative.
* Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance - The Shell Station next to the site is a 24 hour site with lights on 24/7 and traffic over the same period so the site, from the travellers' position would not be appropriate particularly if small children were resident.
* Agricultural land quality - Not applicable
* Impact on visual amenity including the visibility and character of the site and surrounding area - One can only imagine that it would be dreadful. It would be difficult to screen the site from the canal and even the road could not easily be screened due to the positioning of the site access. Cars approaching and leaving Warwick on this heavily used road would be met with a most unattractive sight.
* The potential for the site to be adequately screened - See above - screening is required on four sides and it would be difficult to screen it from the canal, Ugly Bridge and the Birmingham Road itself.
* Access to the road network - Very dangerous with three major accesses within a few yards on possibly the busiest trunk road into Warwick an absolute recipe for disaster.
* Distance to GP surgeries, schools, dentists, hospitals, shops and community facilities - Local schools are full, the rest of the facilities are a way away other than the Shell Garage
* Proximity to other residential properties - Many houses are alongside the Birmingham Road and would find this suggested development extremely disturbing and even more so if the projected building site at Hatton Park is approved although one wonders what developer would chance his arm to build next to a Gypsy Site of such prominence?
* Potential for the proposal to utilise previously developed land - This is not really developed land in the true sense of the words
* Safe access to and from the site for vehicles and pedestrians - This must be one of the major stumbling blocks - it is placed at a dangerous junction on a fast road next to a garage - a recipe for disaster.
* Site topography - Low lying, overshadowed by the canal, overlooked by the Ugly Bridge and Ugly Bridge Road. A good place for a pond!
* Suitable size - No comment
* Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)- Presumably by compulsory purchase?
* Deliverability of the site and associated infrastructure requirements - It is believed that there are too many cogent reasons against this site for it to be practically deliverable without leaving the Council open to legal action for damages in the future.
In short this seems to be a totally inappropriate site for a Gypsy encampment or, indeed for any other form of development. The traffic problems would also seem to indicate the unsuitableness of further housing next to Hatton Park.

I object to the proposed site at GT19 as follows:-

How would these people be served by public transport in this area when as local residents we do not enjoy a reliable or efficient bus service. We have lived on Hatton Park for 14 years and have not found the service in any way acceptable.

As part of the plan to build 70-90 houses on the site adjacent to Hatton Park, this will certainly create an increase volume of traffic on the busy A4177 road which has had 2 fatal accidents within the last 5 years. The road is also prone to flooding. By introducing caravans and large vehicles to the proposed GT19 site this will only add to the problem.

I feel that the WDC are expressing double standards when the current landowner has had at least two applications rejected on the grounds that his site is in the green belt. What then are the exceptional circumstances that are required by central government to develop on green belt land?

It is evident that if this proposal is implemented the remaining land will reduce in value and there is a possibility that the tax payer will be liable for compensation. Why, as a tax and council tax payer should my hard earned money be used in this way?

If, as proposed by WDC to use tax payers money to compulsory purchase site GT19 how can this be justified as good use of public funds? There are more important causes within this local community where valuable funds should be spent for the benefit of local residents who contribute their taxes accordingly.

If the argument by the Council for the rejection of site 2 as a new development for houses because of the close proximity to the canal, surely the same criteria should be applied for the gypsy and traveller site?

To conclude, what I witnessed on Sunday 27th April at the horse fair in Kenilworth is an example of how the gypsy and traveller community tried to integrate with the locas, then as far as I'm concerned they showed no respect whatsoever. They had no regard for the local residents and parked on grass verges churning the ground on both sides of the busy Leamington Road and in turn causing traffic chaos. Any clearing up process and making good the grass verges are no doubt the responsibility of the local council to whom we all pay our council tax. Would the gypsy/travellers be asked to contribute to this?

I write to object to the proposed site GT19, Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (green).

The proposed site is unsuitable on a number of grounds.
Any access would be from the busy and dangerous Birmingham Road which has a history of accidents around the junction with Woodway at Ugly Bridge and the entrance to the Shell petrol station.
The immediate proximity of the canal would be hazardous for the young children of travellers, and such a development would be detrimental to the heritage status of the Hatton Locks flight.
Of particular importance is the recent decision of the Planning Inspector with regard to the unlawful traveller site at nearby Kites Nest Lane, Beausale. The same reasons for the refusal at Kites Nest apply equally to this proposed site. WDC would be contravening the Planning Inspector if the Birmingham Road site was to be progressed.

I write to OBJECT to proposals to allocate site GT19 for Gypsies and Travellers.
1) The site is in the Green Belt
2) Development of this site would cause harm to the Green Belt in this locality
3) The site is open in nature and any further development would affect its open character .
4) this is not an appropriate site for further development
I trust this site will ultimately be rejected

I would like to formally log my objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site GT19 on the A4177 Birmingham road.

This is further erosion of green belt land and there are more suitable sites for people to live proposed elsewhere. I live in Hatton and this is a dangerous and fast road - there has been some notable and high profile bad accidents over the past few years because of it. This position of this sight would see vehicles turning in and out of what is the most dangerous stretch and undoubtedly lead to more accidents. I do not see this as a suitable residential area either, particularly for travellers who will have young children. The site is sandwiched between 2 hazards, a canal on one side and a fast road on the other - no place for children to play or explore.

Sometimes we walk from our estate down the path through the fields to the gate that comes out opposite the Shell garage. I am always nervous crossing here, to get to the canal or shell garage shop, especially when we have walked down as a family and trying to get our own children across. Cars come so fast and it is no place for pedestrians.

I feel that if this proposal goes ahead it will be another fatality waiting to happen.

To Whom it may concern,

I am writing to advise you of my objection to the aforementioned prposed traveller's site based on the following criteria.

Impact on the green belt: It is my understanding that this site is in the green belt and that the government guidelines state that there must be "very exceptional circumstances" in order to use such sites.

Impact on Landscape character: The Birmingham Road is an extensive stretch of beautiful countryside, with very occasional housing visible from the road and some local public houses. The site has already begun to look in a state of disarray and if the proposal gets approved this will only get worse. My husband recently went for a walk near to the site and discovered a caravan on a public pathway being lived in, and a child defecating in the middle of the pathway. This is not the kind of image we wish to be subjected to.

Ability of infrastructure requirements to be adequately met: There is one shop for the local area and the local school, Ferncumbe Primary is already oversubscribed, having to introduce strict criteria in order to prioritise entry. Additionally, the junction of the road with Ugly Bridge Road, adjacent to the proposed site is a notorious traffic accident black spot, with more people and more vehicles in the area this will only get worse.

Impact on ecology: The area being such a rural zone, there are numerous farms in the area, and various wildlife present in the area, which are likely to affected by this.

Impact on land contamination, noise and other disturbance: As previously mentioned, the site is in a rural area, with very little residual noise, and multiple families residing on the site will increase this dramatically. Traffic as mentioned above will also increase. This particular area is already greatly affected by traffic jams in both directions at peak time, and additional vehicles, especially turning into the site, will only make this worse.

Impact on visual amenity including the visibility and character of the site and surrounding area: Please see point above "impact on landscape character". Additionally, the local Hatton Locks site is an historical site which is a great tourist attraction - this would be affected by the proposed site being located in such close proximity.

Distance to GP surgeries, schools, dentists, hospitals, shops and community facilities: The nearest GP surgery is in Budbrooke and is over 1.6miles away, beyond that the nearest surgery is in Warwick, over 2.5 miles away. Ferncumbe Primary is the nearest school and this is 2 miles away, and as previously mentioned, already oversubscribed. The nearest edntis is over 3 miles away, as is the hospital, and there is only the village shop in Hatton Village itself. There are very limited facilities within the area, and these facilities would not be able to cope with additional residents.

Proximity to other residential properties: There are a number of houses directly on the Birmingham road, and there are two housing terraces with a small number of houses, as a resident of one such house, we would be overwhelmed and outnumbered by the arrival of so many additional families.

Potential for the proposal to utilise previously developed land: The proposed site has not been developed for this purpose. This land has already been designed for a purpose which would be more suited to the area - a cattery and kennels and sales of log for fires. With a large proportion of the houses in the local area utilising wood burning fires, this site would be better served by renovating the existing facilities for the original purposes. This would be beneficial to the local economy as well as not being detrimental to the local area. From a personal perspective as I will shortly be rescuing a cat, having a cattery in such close proximity would be far more useful to me than a traveller site.

Additionally, the landowner does not want to release the land and I do not think a compulsory purchase of this land for this purpose is the best use of local resources, at a time when public services are constantly being cut due to lack of financing. I would rather see this money put to improving the public transport services in the area.

I am writing with reference to Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Road, Budbrooke - GT19.
I am OBJECTING to the proposed traveller site.

I am objecting on the following criteria, as set out by the council:
1. Greenbelt - This is an application on Greenbelt land and it is therefore not an appropriate use of the land. It is NOT a very exceptional circumstance.
2. Landscape character - I think this site would be detrimental to the character of the area as it will be highly visible to locals and tourists arriving in Warwick.
3. Heritage assets - I believe this site would have a highly detrimental impact on the area, including the Hatton Flight Locks which is a popular historical and ecological tourist attraction, which is also very popular with local residents.
4. Adequately screened - The site is open and too close to the main road to be adequately screened, any natural screening will take years to grow, any other form of screening would be unsightly and unacceptable.
5. Safe access - This road is a very well known accident black spot, which has included several fatalities, any increase in traffic entering and exiting the site will present an increased risk for both travellers and other road users. There is also a high risk to any pedestrians. As a regular user of this road, the danger of this increased traffic greatly concerns me.
Proximity to residential properties - This proposed site is right on the door step of several well established family properties, I do not consider it acceptable to locate a traveller site so close to these homes.

As a resident of Hatton Park, in addition to the comments already made by the Councillor for the Budbrooke ward, I would like to voice my own concerns about the proposal to use the Oaklands Farm as the place for the development of a new traveller site comprising 5 pitches:

1) Safety :

a. If used as a site for travellers, one can only expect the frequency of people driving into and out of Oaklands Farm to increase dramatically. This has to be seen as an increased risk of potential accidents, and we cannot ignore the fact that there have been already 2 fatal incidents on Birmingham Road in the last few years.
b. Oaklands Farm lies below the level of Birmingham Road, and its conspicuousness is exacerbated by the lack of thick bushes or hedgerows around the area. A traveller's site with its daily activity would undoubtedly attract the attention of drivers passing by and could lead to an increase in the number of distractions, and possibly accidents.
c. The presence of travellers should not necessary be linked to a higher crime rate, but a higher probability for crime in the area may be triggered by having temporary neighbours with perhaps a different understanding about property and personal possession. A greater police presence in the community would undoubtedly be necessary. We cannot forget that the Hatton Park community has grown in the last years to include up to 800 families, made up of hard working people who in the most part have to leave their homes unattended during the day. I do not think it is necessary to point out that the amount of council tax generated by the Hatton Park community ought to help pay towards safeguarding our homes and our belongings.

2) Environment :

a. The nearby canal is today a well maintained and clean attraction both for its neighbours, visitors as well as various families of birds who have chosen this place as their breeding ground. The current state of the canal cannot be jeopardised, and it would be crucial to enforce controls ensuring that waste produced by the travellers is not disposed of into the canal or the surrounding area.
b. Due to the difference in ground level between Oaklands Farm and Birmingham Road, the site is often flooded after periods of heavy rain and would undoubtedly create a very difficult and potentially dangerous environment for any families living there in caravans. I remember seeing the land several times under 2 - 5 inches of water.

3) Cohabitation and Image:

a. Due to the origins of the travellers, there will certainly be different cultural influences defining their day to day activities, and the way in which special events are celebrated. Differences between what the travellers and the current community consider acceptable with regards to timetables, noise levels and general behaviour could lead to unnecessary friction and unpleasantness on both sides. I do not think it is unreasonable to foresee that the unavoidable increased noise levels would have a massive negative impact on the families living nearby.
b. The cultural differences of the travellers may even extend to their perception of order and cleanliness. Due to the very visible location of Oaklands Farm, any mess on the site will be highly visible from Birmingham Road and from the canal. This is something that the neighbours should not have to tolerate.
c. Any image loss in this area would directly impact Hatton Park and its surroundings, turning it from a highly desirable and sought-after location into a second or third-rate option. Who will take responsibility for a potential devaluation of all the homes in the area, and how would a new traveller site on Oaklands Farm impact the house prices of the new homes that are planned to be built nearby?

In summary, I would suggest that the maximum priority has to be finding a place where these families can settle in the right conditions:

a) In a safe location, away from a busy road with lots of traffic and potential hazards.
b) In a more secluded and private location, out of the eye of onlookers and passing drivers.
c) In a more sheltered location, protecting the families and their caravans from heavy rain and flooding.
d) In a place with a proper drainage system for rain and black water and safe electricity infrastructure.
e) In a location where the schools are not already fully occupied and where the children would be genuinely welcomed into the community.
f) In a place where the families could fully enjoy their own lifestyle and celebrations without disturbing neighbours and risking being misunderstood.

I hope that I have been able to bring some fresh ideas to the debate.

Please record this e mail as formal registration of an objection to the two proposals - referenced for consideration as Traveller accommodation - In short there can be no reasonable requirement for Green Belt land to be considered for such use.

The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts. Any consideration here will go against that guidance.

Apart from arguing & stating the green belt policy principle, it is also worthwhile reinforcing that the development would in actual fact as well as in policy terms be inappropriate - it would 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' (The appraisal notes that GT alt03 in particular is open). Arguments for the value of the site(s) in terms of how their contribution to the green belt - contributing to 'openness' and to separating urban areas from each other are also relevant here. Furthermore development on the sites would be prominent/ visually intrusive and the recommendation of an owner is not a relevant variable in the context of Green Belt policy

GT19 is the only green belt site on the Council's list of proposed sites and it should not be looked at as anything else - to do so will open up 100's of potentially inappropriate sites as being a possible consideration and result in policy not being a basis for policy outcomes.

Having consulted professionals and researched this process I would like to make the following comments regarding traveller and Gypsy site references GT19 & GTalt03:

Sites in the Green Belt should only be considered at all in policy terms if no other viable options are available and this does not appear to be the case. The Government's own guidance issued in March 2012 re traveller sites (accompanies the National Planning Policy Framework) reconfirms that in plan making and decision taking (re traveller sites) Local Authorities should specifically avoid inappropriate development in Green Belts.

The process to date seems to readily dismiss non-Green Belt sites because they are previously or currently allocated for other uses. Whilst these circumstances may bring practical implications / conflicting expectations they should not be ruled out so quickly as the exercise should not be limited only to currently unallocated sites it should be integral to planning the area as a whole.

The developments would be inappropriate, not just in policy terms but they would also 'harm' the Green Belt by reducing the degree of 'openness' referred to in the appraisals, as any development would clearly be prominent and visually intrusive.

In the appraisal, the Council has noted GTalt03 as an open, green belt site and has not argued that there are is any exceptional case to allow development against the context of green belt policies.

We write to support the objection lodged by HOTHRA and /or the Hatton Residents Association regarding the possible development of the above land.

We do not wish our details to be published.

I would like to comment on the proposed traveller site at GT19, Birmingham Road to which I object due to the following reasons:

Firstly the proposed site is within the green belt; secondly the site would directly back onto the locks which were built in 1799. These locks are a fantastic part of the British waterways and having a travellers site here would cause a terrible loss to our beautiful historic canals and affect tourism to this local area.

There is also the risk on the wildlife in and around the canal. Here heron, kingfishers and swans are regularly seen and are protected, including their nest, under the wildlife and countryside act. This proposed development would disturb their environment.

This site would be visible from the canal, the road and from many views of the local residents in and around Hatton Park.

Your proposed access point is directly on to a fast moving road, where caravans/ cars would be pulling directly onto and off the main road where there have already been a number of incidents and deaths. Any turning or overflow parking would be on the main road obstructing the view of drivers and pedestrians.

There is also the issue of safety for the proposed residents of the site. Presumably there would be both children and pets which would be located very near to the main road. With 5 pitches in such a small site there would be the increased chance of either children or pets making their way onto the main road and endangering themselves.

I wish to voice my objection to the Oakland's Farm site which has been shortlisted as a preferred option site for gypsys and travellers.

My objection is based on the following;

1. This is the only proposed site within the Green Belt. The Green Belt is precious and should be protected by the Council as it always has been up until now. There are strict planning rules relating to development on green belt land which residents have to abide by and these rules should be followed by all in order to avoid a floodgates situation whereby one breach of an important rule sets a precedent which results in the loss of further Green Belt land. This may result in planning application challenges to the Green Belt rule by residents.
2. The proposed site will create traffic chaos as there is no plan to upgrade the Birmingham Road running alongside the proposed plan and there are already delays and heavy traffic at peak times
3. Any additional development will increase the traffic along Ugly Bridge Road and other country lanes around the area which do not have the capacity to deal with high volumes of fast moving vehicles and are already dangerous for walkers and other road users.
4. The proposed site in conjunction with the proposed development at Hatton Park in excess of 90 houses will cause major congestion.
5. The proposed site is dangerous; the B4177 is a fast moving and busy main Road. There have been a number of very bad accidents, some fatal, in the vicinity of the proposed site. Turning off and joining the main road is very hazardous and can take a long time which causes queuing tailbacks and concertina hazards.
6. The petrol station next to the proposed site is already a major hazard for turning in a out of, as is Ugly Bridge Road. The site for the travellers would be exacerbating an already dangerous location as there will be travellers' vehicles e.g. lorries, cars and caravans using access to a site just metres away from already hazardous turning points.

Please acknowledge safe receipt of my objection.

I wish to voice my objection to the Oakland's Farm site which has been shortlisted as a preferred option site for gypsys and travellers.

My objection is based on the following;

1. This is the only proposed site within the Green Belt. The Green Belt is precious and should be protected by the Council as it always has been up until now. There are strict planning rules relating to development on green belt land which residents have to abide by and these rules should be followed by all in order to avoid a floodgates situation whereby one breach of an important rule sets a precedent which results in the loss of further Green Belt land. This may result in planning application challenges to the Green Belt rule by residents.
2. The proposed site will create traffic chaos as there is no plan to upgrade the Birmingham Road running alongside the proposed plan and there are already delays and heavy traffic at peak times
3. Any additional development will increase the traffic along Ugly Bridge Road and other country lanes around the area which do not have the capacity to deal with high volumes of fast moving vehicles and are already dangerous for walkers and other road users.
4. The proposed site in conjunction with the proposed development at Hatton Park in excess of 90 houses will cause major congestion.
5. The proposed site is dangerous; the B4177 is a fast moving and busy main Road. There have been a number of very bad accidents, some fatal, in the vicinity of the proposed site. Turning off and joining the main road is very hazardous and can take a long time which causes queuing tailbacks and concertina hazards.
6. The petrol station next to the proposed site is already a major hazard for turning in a out of, as is Ugly Bridge Road. The site for the travellers would be exacerbating an already dangerous location as there will be travellers' vehicles e.g. lorries, cars and caravans using access to a site just metres away from already hazardous turning points.

OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL OF A GYPSY SITE AT OAKLANDS FARM, WARWICK

I am happy to be contacted to discuss in more detail if required to do so.

This proposed site is in full view on the main A4177 route into historic Warwick. This will create a negative impact on the town's tourism and spoil the openness of the area. Screening off the area will not hide the site or lessen noise, it will only draw unwelcome attention and ultimately change and ruin the landscape.

A key note is that there is a tight knit community in the immediate area; a gypsy site will overwhelm (VIRTUALLY IN BACK GARDENS) and outnumber the nearest residents. This will not promote and integrate co-existence at any level. At this point, I need to mention that recent travellers who camped up opposite the Shell Garage broke the gate padlock and created rubbish which was strewn over the land and cleaning up was paid for by tax payers money. During the time that they were camped up in the area myself and my family were fearful of walking past the site or taking our dogs for a walk (which is our regular route). This is not something I want to contend with and be frightened in my own home due to the gypsies being close by (Newspaper reports state that they create noise, crime and violence, Dale Farm being an example - would you want them to be YOUR NEIGHBOURS?!!!!!)

OTHER REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. ROAD SAFETY AND CONGESTION
* Well noted accident black spot route (A4177) (several fatal accidents over the last 5 years) and no mention of any additional safety measures which are essential.
* 40mph speed limit not adhered; the volume of traffic is increasing, already guaranteeing severe traffic problems, hence creating high risk for children crossing the road to and from school etc.
* Previous planning applications by the owner of Oaklands Farm have been refused because of the heightened risk to road users
* Access to site will be unsafe (it is bad enough getting out on to this road with a small car, consider the difficulties and risks involved with a caravan in tow)
2. CANAL
* The dangers of deep water - an extremely high risk to children, particularly those not supervised
* Narrow boats (holidaymakers, will cease to park up close by, creating an impact on local businesses)
* Bird spotters, anglers, picnickers, walkers, runners, cyclists will avoid the area close to the gypsy site due to their publicised behaviour and lack of concern for others
3. HUGE IMPACT ON THE NATURAL AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
* 'Stairway to Heaven', well known and popular visitor attraction and has historic canal heritage dating back to 1799 - detrimental to its heritage and its visitors!!!!
* Gypsy site will seriously affect local tourism
* Fear of crime (National Newspapers)
* Threat to peaceful 'way of life'. It is not racist to state that gypsy camps frequently cause an increase in crime and mess. It is a statement of fact. (Mail Online, January 2009).
* Poor street lighting
4. BAD IMAGE TO VISITORS
* Eyesore on approach to Warwick, sending out bad vibes to visitors as it is in full view on the approach to the historic town of Warwick
* Loose/dangerous dogs from the travellers may wander onto the road/canal, frightening people and causing accidents
5. HEALTH RISKS
* High risk of harmful emissions to those residing in caravans with pollutants from petrol station and the road - National News - avoid developments within 100m of a petrol station/dangers of combining road pollution - fatal cancer in children and the elderly
* Potential risk of Weill's disease if living conditions allow the spread of vermin, which is possible from the storage of food etc.
* Noise level from 24 hour garage (lack of sleep etc.)
* Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European Guidelines on safety
6. LOSS OF GREENBELT

Planning policy for traveller sites states

Policy E: Traveller sites in Green Belt

"INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IS HARMFUL TO GREEN BELT AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, EXCEPT IN VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. TRAVELLER SITES (TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT) IN THE GREEN BELT ARE INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT. NO-ONE AT ALL IS AWARE OF ANY JUSTIFCATION TO OPEN SUCH A SITE AT OAKLANDS FARM"
* Endangering wildlife, (Kingfishers, water voles, protected slow-worms and grass snakes etc.) arable productivity and visual amenity
* Greenbelt cannot be replaced
* Inappropriate development
* The detriment to the ecology, wildlife and all local farmland clearly present numerous and very strong reasons to oppose this site
7. RISK OF FLOODING
* Flood plain on road adjacent to Oaklands Farm and with proposal of additional housing at Hatton Park this is likely to worsen
* Ditches overflow by Ugly Bridge - not suitable for a settlement
* Mouchel Report compiled for Warwick District Council April 2013 states "avoid development near canals as they can be at risk from flooding".
8. INFRASTRUCTURE
* Local stores limited in range of produce and higher in cost
* Local school is at capacity. (Also consider walking distance to local school, doctors etc.)
* Doctor's surgery is currently a full patient load (Again walking distance)
* Roads not able to sustain heavy/additional vehicles without thousands of pounds being spent
* Undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services

9. DEMOGRAPHIC
* Strong possibility that travellers will exceed the total number of residents in the immediate vicinity of Birmingham Road and will spread rapidly, hence taking over the area and turning it into a mess (great for people visiting the area!!)
10. EGRESS
* Entry to and from site poses risks to pedestrians and motorists as not suitable due to the high volume of traffic in the area and the movement of gypsy and travellers vans, caravans etc. will increase these risks
* Ugly bridge will require maintenance and support
11. RAILWAY EMBANKMENT
* Unsupervised children climbing the railway embankment and the nearby railway bridge will be an accident waiting to happen (just like the canal)
I trust that the above objections will be taken into serious consideration and the huge impact this will have on local residents and Warwick Town. I look forward to receiving updates at the earliest possible convenience. However, please also consider the cost to the general public of setting up this site; is this what we are paying our council tax for? Will the gypsy and travellers be paying council tax? and if not, why not?!

RE: WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION MARCH 2014
- SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS PREFERRED OPTONS FOR SITES

RESPONSE TO PROPOSED SITE GT19 (LAND ADJACENT SHELL PETROL FILLING STATION, BIRMINGHAM ROAD, BUDBROOKE, WARWICK)

Various arguments have been proposed by Hampton Magna Residents' Association to assist me in formulating my response. Having considered these arguments and the Consultation Documents and the criteria for responses, I wish the following to be considered as my own personal submission on the subject.

Criterion: Impact on the green belt

Site GT19 is in the Green Belt. Of the five preferred option sites currently shortlisted it is the only one in the Green Belt. The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt Land should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

On 1 July 2013, in his written statement to Parliament, Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister stated:
"Our policy document planning policy for traveller sites was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development ... .

... it has become apparent that, in some cases, the green belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.

The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the green belt."

This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his 17 January 2014 statement:
"The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt."

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states:
"Policy E: Traveller Sites in Green Belt
14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very exceptional circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development"

WDC has not shown very exceptional circumstances exist for including GT 19 in the list of preferred sites. This contravenes government policy.

The Consultation Document merely states that previous development has been permitted on the proposed site but it is equally the case that planning permission has also been refused due to its impact on the Green Belt.

In addition, the Green Belt argument was used against Kite's Nest site being a gypsy and traveller site. It is less than a mile away and the sites are in several aspects similar, therefore this argument applies equally if not more so to Site GT 19. To oppose the Kites Nest site on the grounds of impact on Green Belt and propose GT19 site when on Green Belt land would also show a lack of consistency in WDC's appraising of sites with similar issues.

The Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal stated:
"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."

Impact on the Green Belt should alone be a sufficient ground for refusal.
Criterion: Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)

The owner of the land at site GT19, Robert Butler, does not want to sell it
for a Traveller and Gypsy site. Therefore a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be needed and Warwick District Council has said that a CPO could be used. This is in complete contravention of ministerial statements.

The use of a Compulsory Purchase could set up conditions for a legal challenge.

If the GT19 site were to be approved it would put the current owner's business at considerable risk and so there would also be the question of compensation for the owners business that suffered as a consequence.

Expenditure on this and a CPO would not be an appropriate use of limited financial resources of WDC.

Criterion: Proximity to other residential properties

The Kites Nest inspector 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 or 8 pitch scheme.

The same argument applies for site GT19 which is set within a group of houses 4 houses to the south and a Shell petrol station to the north followed by a further 10 houses. The provision of five pitches on this site would increase the housing density by 25 per cent and thus would change the local dynamics.

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 of the proposed GT19 site.

The Kites Nest inspector accepted that the scattered houses do form an identifiable community. Birmingham Road houses similarly form a community and therefore it could be argued that approval of site GT19 would be going against the inspector's comments which have helped WDC in the past.

PPTS Policy B, paragraph 11(a) states that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". PPTS - Policy C states that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community".

For the above reasons, selection of Site GT19 would appear to contravene these policies.

Criterion: Safe Access from the Site for vehicles and pedestrians.

Approval of the GT19 site would locate the pitches between the canal and a fast and busy road (Birmingham Road A4177). Traffic on this road is already dangerous and if proposed housing developments occur it would be set to increase. This road has had 2 fatal accidents in the last five years. There was also another serious accident in March 2014.

Movement of caravans and large vehicles in and out of the site on such a fast and busy road would not only be potentially dangerous to the proposed occupiers of the GT19 site it could increase the likelihood of more accidents to other traffic. In fact an application by the current owner for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused on the grounds of Green Belt citing the fact that the site is on a busy and fast main road (Birmingham Road A4177). To refuse the landowner's application on such grounds and then ignore them when assessing the GT19 proposal is contradictory.

Criterion: Impact on visual amenity including the visibility of the site and surrounding area.

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. Site GT19 would be similarly visible through gappy hedges.

The road is higher than the proposed site so that it would be overlooked. In the current consultation document reference is made to a habitat buffer being required to the canal side of the development. It could be argued that similar screening would be required on the road side to give the residents privacy from passing traffic and to screen off the caravans from the neighbouring houses. Screening issues for Site GT19 are even more extensive than Kites Nest.

Site GT 19 would also be visible from the canal which is a tourist attraction with its many locks and is likely to have an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. The present canal dates back to 1799 and the flight of 21 locks are well known among waterways aficionados and are a greatly valued heritage asset. There is also a great deal of narrow boat traffic, especially in the summer months, to see and use the 21 locks.
Criterion: Distance to nearby Schools ... etc.

Education would have to be provided for gypsy children and it has been suggested that children could attend Budbrooke School. Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton is also full.

Criterion: Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance

The five pitches present potential noise and disturbance for families living in close proximity.

Compliance with PPTS - health and wellbeing
It is noted that no criterion is listed to address this policy and it should be.

PPTS Policy B - Paragraph 11(e) states that local planning authorities should, ensure that their policies:
" provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development ."

The GT19 site is adjacent to a nearby a canal. There could be detrimental effects to the health and well being of young children living near the canal.

Also, to put children on a site near a potentially dangerous road does not appear to comply with this Policy.

Criterion: impact on heritage assets and setting of heritage assets

The flight of 21 locks was opened in 1799 and known as the "stairway to heaven". The tourist heritage side of Budbrooke is currently underdeveloped. Ramblers, joggers, dog walkers, cyclists, artists, photographers, bird watchers and other groups use the towpath. Then there is the river traffic. Narrow boat owners travel along the canal at weekends and for their holidays. Boats are also rented for holidays.

To locate the Gypsy and Traveller Site adjacent to this area would not enhance it but have an adverse affect and the history and heritage of the area.

We understand that the current owner of proposed GT19 site in conjunction has drawn up plans with British Waterways for a marina with a restaurant and a conference centre. This would include a heritage area with pictures and artefacts of traditional life so that local people and visitors could see and appreciate the lives of former generations.

The viability of this proposal should at least be considered in order to examine whether it could the increase the tourist industry in the area and provide employment opportunities for local people.

It would seem that encouraging tourism, preservation of heritage, and possible employment opportunities should take precedence over inappropriate use of expenditure on CPOs and potential financial compensation.


I wish this document to be regarded as my personal representations against the GT19 site.

Objections to the Proposed Gypsies & Travellers Site (G&TS) on the Birmingham Road (GT19)

I have carefully considered the information made available and have identified a range of objections, both in terms of principles and details, as below.

The Green Belt
The proposed site is on Green Belt land. However, absolutely no Exceptional Circumstances whatsoever are provided to justify these potential contraventions of both the FPPF, and central government policy. In particular simply to assert that an unmet demand exists certainly does not constitute an Exceptional Circumstance or any justification for a development on the Green Belt. Therefore the WDC ought to revise and reissue its case for the proposed G&T19 site.

The Local Plan
There is absolutely no mention of the G&TSs in the Local Plan. However the Local Plan is stated by the WDC to be unsound without a commitment to meeting the G&T need (Section 6.1, Report to Executive of WDC of 12/2/12014). Therefore the Local Plan, and the consultations for both the G&TSs and the proposed development of new housing, appear unfit for purpose and ought to be revised and reissued.

The Consultation Process
(i) The consultation process for the G&TS is being carried out by the WDC entirely without anymention of, or reference to, the consultation process for the proposed development of 70-90 houses in the field opposite. The combined effects of both proposed developments have to be taken into account in the planning process because both affect important local infrastructures such as roads, especially the B1477, and schools etc. Failure to do so risks a major planning failure and waste of taxpayers money which will dwarf the succession of roadworks carried out in the centre of Warwick.

(ii) The consultation process is being carried out extremely rapidly with residents being given only a few weeks notice despite, earlier in the year having been told by a Council Official at a consultation meeting that the G&TS 'will not happen'. This haste is entirely undemocratic and contrary to the rights of residents under the Localism Bill, especially as they have no knowledge of planning procedures and have to do all the work required in their spare time, unlike the Planning Officials who are paid to do their jobs full time. Also the short consultation process is completely unnecessary considering that the WDC state that even if permission is gained then the time scale for the provision of the G&TS is as long as 5 (five) years! Consequently the brevity of consultation process throws into question whether residents of are being allowed fair and proper consultation.

(iii) No information has been sent to residents by Hatton Parish Council, and so an essential element in the democratic process, renewed and strengthened by the very recent Localism Bill of 2011, has been omitted from the consultation process. Therefore the consultation process should be repeated with this time ensuring that the HPC carrying out its full role in local government.

Costs
No consideration has been given to the cost to the taxpayer involved in the provision of just 5 G&T pitches on this 0.25 acre site.

Compulsory Purchase
The WDC has agreed to use taxpayers money to carry out compulsory purchase to obtain land for G&TSs, contrary to the requirement of central government. Therefore given the possible response of central government and the consequences to local tax payers, the WDC should seek a mandate from its ratepayers before embarking on such an expensive and hazardous policy.

The Detailed Rational for the Designation of Oaklands Farm as a G&TS
(i) There is an incompatibility between the acknowledgement in the WDC document that the proposed G&TS is Grade 3 agricultural land (that is classed as 'best and most desirable' and should be protected from development), and its designation as previously developed land for the purposed of selecting those potential G&TSs that are most suitable. This incompatibility needs to be resolved.

(ii) The statement used as a justification for the designation of Oaklands Farm as a G&TS 'The area has an urban feel to it' is purely subjective and unprofessional, and so has absolutely no place in an evidence and facts-based decision making process, and only serves to betray the interests of the WDC, which it can be assumed have also been applied to other areas of the consultation and planning process.

(iii) In general it does appear that standards and criteria are being applied selectively by the Planners, whereas a systematic evidence-based assessment and decision making process is what is required and expected by the taxpayers who fund this service.


(iv) As regards the Nine Selection Criteria used by the WDC in reaching its decision

1. The proposed G&TS will add to the stress and strain on the local infrastructure, particularly if combined with the proposed development of 70-90 additional houses in the fields opposite to it, over the A4177, that is prone to flooding, already creates rush hour congestion, and has been the sit of two recent RTA fatalities. In addition the local school if full.

2. As above the A4177 is subject to flooding very close to the proposed G&T site.

3. It is wrong to make any statement concerning the level of traffic turning in and out of the proposed G&T site simply because it is completely unknown what businesses will be carried out from the proposed G&T site, and so how much road traffic could be generated by it. Also a planning application concerning storing caravans at Oaklands Farm was recently rejected by WDC, which is clearly completely incompatible with the designation of Oaklands Farm as a proposed G&T site.

6. A key argument used by the WDC for the rejection of Site 2 for the site of the proposed additional 70-90 houses was its proximity to the canal. Therefore the same criteria must be used as an argument to reject Oaklands Farm as a proposed G&T site involving permanently sited caravans.

7. The proposed G&TS will be visible from the road through an intermittent hedge, since the road is at a higher level.

8. The proposed GT19 G&TS puts the businesses of the owner of Oaklands Farm at risk, with obvious negative consequences including the taxpayer being required to pay compensation. In addition the proposed G&TS would separate and dominate the longstanding community of 14 homes that was recognised to exist by the previous Inspector. In addition the owner of this site has not agreed to sell the site to the WDC for us as a G&T site, contrary to what has been stated in the Local Plan documentation.

9. As stated above (# 1) the proposed G&TS will add to the stress and strain on the local infrastructure, particularly if combined with the proposed development of 70-90 additional houses in the fields opposite to it, over the A4177, that is anyway prone to flooding, already creates rush hour congestion, and has been the sit of two recent RTA fatalities. In addition the local school if full.

RE: WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION MARCH 2014 - SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS PREFERRED OPTONS FOR SITES

RESPONSE TO PROPOSED SITE GT19 (LAND ADJACENT SHELL PETROL FILLING STATION, BIRMINGHAM ROAD, BUDBROOKE, WARWICK)

Various arguments have been proposed by Hampton Magna Residents' Association to assist me in formulating my response. Having considered these arguments and the Consultation Documents and the criteria for responses, I wish the following to be considered as my own personal submission on the subject.

Criterion: Impact on the green belt

Site GT19 is in the Green Belt. Of the five preferred option sites currently shortlisted it is the only one in the Green Belt. The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt Land should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

On 1 July 2013, in his written statement to Parliament, Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister stated:
"Our policy document planning policy for traveller sites was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development ... .

... it has become apparent that, in some cases, the green belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.

The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the green belt."

This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his 17 January 2014 statement:
"The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt."

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states:
"Policy E: Traveller Sites in Green Belt
14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very exceptional circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development"

WDC has not shown very exceptional circumstances exist for including GT 19 in the list of preferred sites. This contravenes government policy.

The Consultation Document merely states that previous development has been permitted on the proposed site but it is equally the case that planning permission has also been refused due to its impact on the Green Belt.

In addition, the Green Belt argument was used against Kite's Nest site being a gypsy and traveller site. It is less than a mile away and the sites are in several aspects similar, therefore this argument applies equally if not more so to Site GT 19. To oppose the Kites Nest site on the grounds of impact on Green Belt and propose GT19 site when on Green Belt land would also show a lack of consistency in WDC's appraising of sites with similar issues.

The Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal stated:
"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."

Impact on the Green Belt should alone be a sufficient ground for refusal.

Criterion: Availability of the site (including impact on the existing uses on the site)

The owner of the land at site GT19, Robert Butler, does not want to sell it
for a Traveller and Gypsy site. Therefore a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be needed and Warwick District Council has said that a CPO could be used. This is in complete contravention of ministerial statements.

The use of a Compulsory Purchase could set up conditions for a legal challenge.

If the GT19 site were to be approved it would put the current owner's business at considerable risk and so there would also be the question of compensation for the owners business that suffered as a consequence.

Expenditure on this and a CPO would not be an appropriate use of limited financial resources of WDC.

Criterion: Proximity to other residential properties

The Kites Nest inspector 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 or 8 pitch scheme.

The same argument applies for site GT19 which is set within a group of houses 4 houses to the south and a Shell petrol station to the north followed by a further 10 houses. The provision of five pitches on this site would increase the housing density by 25 per cent and thus would change the local dynamics.

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 of the proposed GT19 site.

The Kites Nest inspector accepted that the scattered houses do form an identifiable community. Birmingham Road houses similarly form a community and therefore it could be argued that approval of site GT19 would be going against the inspector's comments which have helped WDC in the past.

PPTS Policy B, paragraph 11(a) states that policies should "promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". PPTS - Policy C states that authorities should "ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community".

For the above reasons, selection of Site GT19 would appear to contravene these policies.

Criterion: Safe Access from the Site for vehicles and pedestrians.

Approval of the GT19 site would locate the pitches between the canal and a fast and busy road (Birmingham Road A4177). Traffic on this road is already dangerous and if proposed housing developments occur it would be set to increase. This road has had 2 fatal accidents in the last five years. There was also another serious accident in March 2014.

Movement of caravans and large vehicles in and out of the site on such a fast and busy road would not only be potentially dangerous to the proposed occupiers of the GT19 site it could increase the likelihood of more accidents to other traffic. In fact an application by the current owner for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was refused on the grounds of Green Belt citing the fact that the site is on a busy and fast main road (Birmingham Road A4177). To refuse the landowner's application on such grounds and then ignore them when assessing the GT19 proposal is contradictory.

Criterion: Impact on visual amenity including the visibility of the site and surrounding area.

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. Site GT19 would be similarly visible through gappy hedges.

The road is higher than the proposed site so that it would be overlooked. In the current consultation document reference is made to a habitat buffer being required to the canal side of the development. It could be argued that similar screening would be required on the road side to give the residents privacy from passing traffic and to screen off the caravans from the neighbouring houses. Screening issues for Site GT19 are even more extensive than Kites Nest.

Site GT 19 would also be visible from the canal which is a tourist attraction with its many locks and is likely to have an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. The present canal dates back to 1799 and the flight of 21 locks are well known among waterways aficionados and are a greatly valued heritage asset. There is also a great deal of narrow boat traffic, especially in the summer months, to see and use the 21 locks.

Criterion: Distance to nearby Schools ... etc.

Education would have to be provided for gypsy children and it has been suggested that children could attend Budbrooke School. Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population. Ferncombe School in Hatton is also full.

Criterion: Impact of land contamination, noise and other disturbance

The five pitches present potential noise and disturbance for families living in close proximity.

Compliance with PPTS - health and wellbeing
It is noted that no criterion is listed to address this policy and it should be.

PPTS Policy B - Paragraph 11(e) states that local planning authorities should, ensure that their policies:
" provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development ."

The GT19 site is adjacent to a nearby a canal. There could be detrimental effects to the health and well being of young children living near the canal.

Also, to put children on a site near a potentially dangerous road does not appear to comply with this Policy.

Criterion: impact on heritage assets and setting of heritage assets

The flight of 21 locks was opened in 1799 and known as the "stairway to heaven". The tourist heritage side of Budbrooke is currently underdeveloped. Ramblers, joggers, dog walkers, cyclists, artists, photographers, bird watchers and other groups use the towpath. Then there is the river traffic. Narrow boat owners travel along the canal at weekends and for their holidays. Boats are also rented for holidays.

To locate the Gypsy and Traveller Site adjacent to this area would not enhance it but have an adverse affect and the history and heritage of the area.

We understand that the current owner of proposed GT19 site in conjunction has drawn up plans with British Waterways for a marina with a restaurant and a conference centre. This would include a heritage area with pictures and artefacts of traditional life so that local people and visitors could see and appreciate the lives of former generations.

The viability of this proposal should at least be considered in order to examine whether it could the increase the tourist industry in the area and provide employment opportunities for local people.

It would seem that encouraging tourism, preservation of heritage, and possible employment opportunities should take precedence over inappropriate use of expenditure on CPOs and potential financial compensation.


I wish this document to be regarded as my personal representations against the GT19 site.

Budbrooke Parish Council has carefully considered the proposed sites in and around the parish. These are our comments.
Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed

Site GT19 is in the Green Belt. Of the five preferred option sites currently shortlisted it is the only one in the Green Belt. Our contention is that there are no "very special circumstances" for development, the road is hazardous and similar development sites have been turned down by the Planning Inspector, and therefore GT19 should be removed from the options.

The Government has consistently stated that Green Belt Land should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

On 1 July 2013, in his written statement to Parliament, Brandon Lewis MP, Local Government Minister stated:
"Our policy document planning policy for traveller sites was issued in March 2012. It makes clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the green belt and that planning decisions should protect green belt land from such inappropriate development ... .
... it has become apparent that, in some cases, the green belt is not always being given sufficient protection that was the explicit policy intent of ministers.
The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that, in considering planning applications, although each case will depend on the facts, he considers that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development in the green belt."

This was reiterated by Brandon Lewis in his 17 January 2014 statement:
"The Secretary of State remains concerned about the extent to which planning appeal decisions are meeting the government's clear policy intentions, particularly as to whether sufficient weight is being given to the importance of green belt protection. Therefore, he intends to continue to consider for recovery appeals involving traveller sites in the green belt."

In 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."
Indeed, the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states:
"Policy E: Traveller Sites in Green Belt
14. Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very exceptional circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the green belt are inappropriate development"

The owner of the land at site GT19, Robert Butler, does not want to sell it for a Traveller and Gypsy site. Therefore a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be needed and Warwick District Council has said that a CPO could be used. This is in complete contravention of ministerial statements.

Oaklands Farm has been the subject of many planning applications over the years. It is a site within a wider hamlet of dwellings along the Birmingham Road, 4 houses immediately to the east towards Warwick, then beyond Ugly Bridge Lane, there is a Shell petrol station and a further 10 properties. At this point there is a roundabout, an 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:

A number of acceptable developments have been approved in the recent past, however, a significant number have not.

WDC's Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Volume 1 states that each site must have an individual assessment. No such assessment is recorded for this site which has been prone to flooding from the Hatton Park development runoff and balancing pools. Water runs across the A4177 and onto the property where the site would be.

An application for using the site for the importation, storage and cutting of timber was granted by WDC Planning Committee subject to conditions but a previous application for trading on the site was refused on the grounds of it being in the Green Belt and also taking into account that the site is on a busy and fast main road which had had 2 fatal accidents in 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.

It is our understanding that the same arguments apply equally to Oaklands Farm and to Kites Nest Travellers site, which is less than a mile away from Oaklands Farm, in that as the Planning Inspector used the Green Belt argument in the successful removal of travellers. The same arguments can be used with regard to Oaklands Farm from the list of preferred sites.

The Inspector's report from Kites Nest refusal dated 22nd October 2013 stated
"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."

There are no arguments in the WDC proposals that identify any very special circumstances.

Other issues noted, in respect of Kites Nest site, by the Inspector and the Secretary of State include:
* the development was very prominent through 'gappy hedges' from public footpaths
* the existing caravans were an "extremely jarring element'.

The Oaklands Farm site
* is very visible due to the 'gappy hedge' along the road
* and from the canal
* and also the road is higher than the site so occupants would be overlooked
* and the canal is higher than the site
* several entrances on to A4177 at this site
* reduced visibility & pull away
* subject to flooding
* risk to children because of A4177, Ugly Bridge Road with blind bridge & canal
* previously mentioned footpath is on the opposite side of the road with no crossing
* noise from the busy A4177 would be "intolerable for residential use especially for caravans which are less well insulated than conventional housing" which were grounds for rejecting GT17, GT18 & GT20
* the speed limit may be lower but this site is closer to the other roads than the mentioned above
* pollution will be high because at peak periods there is often very slow and even stationery traffic constantly pumping harmful exhaust emissions to wards dwellings that are no well insulated as traditional bricks and mortar

The proposed habitat buffer to the south of the site abutting the canal would be inadequate both for incumbent residents and gypsy or traveller site residents [for privacy on both sides of the site] let alone the jarring element of the site for residents and people passing along the road or canal.

The canal is a significant tourist attraction for barges and walkers alike. Such visual intrusion would be detrimental to the tourist traffic and trade and would be counter to current policy. Also, the removal of a Caravan and Camping Club site is contrary to the policy of supporting local communities, which state that unobtrusive Caravan and Camping sites would be considered - this proposal removes one such site from stock.

In addition, in respect to encouraging tourism NE7, "developments should not
d) adversely affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of a waterways
e) adversely affect the waterways potential for being fully unblocked or discourage the use of the waterway network"
The location of a gypsy and traveller site at GT19 could have a significant impact on walkers and canal boat users and would adversely affect the character and use of the network.

In addition it is suggested that the children could attend Budbrooke School. Budbrooke School is already struggling with numbers due to rising population and children choosing to go to Budbrooke School from Chase Meadow. The additional 100 residential properties that have been allocated to each of Hampton Magna and Hatton Park will make this more challenging. Already SatNav's direct traffic to Warwick Parkway station via Ugly Bridge road so traffic will increase with the Hatton Park development and become an additional risk to people using this site. When Stank's Roundabout {A4177/A46] and roads into Warwick are congested Ugly Bridge Road is a rat run to the Warwick Parkway Station as well as to A46/M40 J15, Stratford and beyond!

The school has recently had an Ofsted inspection reporting it to be in Special Measures; it is understood that this status jeopardises the school's plans for additional classrooms. This would exacerbate the problem of schooling for the site's children. Ferncombe School in Hatton Green is full. Children would have to see places in Warwick via the A4177 with its traffic problems at school run times, at Newborough School again via Warwick or more likely via Hampton Magna & Hampton on the Hill at school run times with substantial volumes or traffic using narrow and unsuitable roads potentially hazardous to the gypsy and traveller children, local residents and Warwick/Chase Meadow residents travelling to Budbrooke School.

In the summary of preferred sites the statement "Subject to agreement with the landowner, this site could be delivered within 5 years" is misleading suggesting that the owner is willing to sell.

Taking all these arguments into account it would be totally inappropriate to locate a Gypsy and Traveller site at GT19, Oaklands Farm


Hampton on the Hill Site GTalt03
The arguments put forward regarding the Oaklands Farm site can equally be used for this site as it is within the green belt, so the Kites Nest arguments are equally very relevant. There is no exceptional circumstance argument for the site to be used, it is 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 and it is visible through 'gappy hedges' from the outside looking in but also considering traveller privacy. Site occupants would face being over looked from the road and therefore their privacy would be lost. The road, although subject to a 50mph restriction, is a very fast road and would be unsuitable for turning on and off the site by large vehicles with trailers attached.

In 2009 the following planning application was refused: W/09/0157 for Change of use of land to caravan site for occupation by gypsy family with associated operational development (utility room, septic tank, hard and soft landscaping and widen dropped kerbs) - Land at junction Hampton Road and Henley Road (A4189) Hampton on the Hill, Warwick

The refusal statement is shown below but a key element for the refusal was on site access. The following is an extract from the Highway Control Engineer's correspondence to the Planning Officer:

I do not feel that a stage 1/2 road safety audit is warranted for an access which in actuality will be used as any other single dwelling access would be used. However, having said that, I would now ask for a further condition to be imposed, in that no caravans/dwellings other than the caravans/dwellings as stated in the application shall be placed within the development.

The refusal was taken to appeal and the original refusal was upheld.

Since 2009, there has been no improvement to the highway. Traffic has increased due to commuters from Chase Meadow development using the road to reach the A46/M40 Junction 15, rather than navigating through Chase Meadow, and Warwick Parkway station.

In addition:
* The summary of preferred sites also states that the site here is flat; that is demonstrably not the case as it overlooks and slopes down towards the town of Warwick.
* There are no amenities near the site
* There are no services on site
* A suggestion that if the access point was moved towards the brow of the hill is inappropriate, the whole site would become more conspicuous.
* The Warwick Parkway/Budbrooke School rush hour and school run traffic runs alongside the site making it hazardous to children living on site
* The FAQ states that if land is considered suitable for houses it is suitable for gypsies and travellers, however the opposite will also be the case. Where a development has been refused for development is should not be used for a gypsy and traveller site.
* The additional hard standing will increase the risk of flooding in the area.
* To maintain the site access and egress for maintenance/fire service access within 45 metres of a dwelling on the site should be a consideration given the combustibility of the dwellings and LPG storage and usage would be necessary
* The pond on the adjacent site is seasonal and unsuitable for the provision of water for firefighting purposes
* The site is unsuitable for screening

The current status of the Local plan means that policies that applied at the time of the original refusal remain current; hence arguments in the proposal for GTAlt03 in respect to Very Special Circumstances cannot be justified as they contradict current policies.

It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal for gypsy and traveller sites identified above is appropriate or necessary and safe in their locations so must be deemed unsound in the context of the local plan.

Planning Notice of REFUSAL W/09/0157