GT19 Land at Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (green)

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

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles says his green belt advice to councils isn't being followed!

Councils have received guidance from the Coalition during 2013 and who have categorically stated that the green belt should have the highest level of protection.

Have you considered the "diversity" of the area to make this proposal?

This development will blight the beauty and surrounding historical area of the canalside (Stairway to Heaven - 1799)

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 ie one family will outnumber 3 households at least and eventually consume the immediate area. This will not promote and integrate co-existence at any level.



OTHER VALID 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.
* This proposed site is in full view on the main 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.
* 40mph speed limit not adhered to; 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. (I have experience of this .........)
* Previous planning applications by the owner of Oaklands Farm have been refused; one reason being 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(s) in tow)
* I challenge councillors to experience the high risk to residents when turning in to their drive/pulling on to the main road/crossing the road etc. I have friends who will not drive to the house because of the dangerous road.
* Wednesday evenings in particular - high speed motorcyclists racing along the road
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.

In response to the proposal to create a new site for the travelling community at Oaklands Farm on the Birmingham Road, I object for the following reasons:

Lack of infrastructure
Although the area around Hatton Park does have a bus service, this only runs once per hour and not at all on Sundays. Such a poor service will hardly encourage travellers to use public transport in order to get into Warwick or Leamington, with the result that they will either drive or travel on foot along a busy road (A4177), having to cross the A46 roundabout in the process, adding to local congestion.

Hatton Park has one small, local shop to service the residents. It is not adequate and will struggle to cope with any influx of new residents.

The local school at Ferncumbe is already oversubscribed, with the result that local children are unable to be accepted. It is obviously highly desirable for all local children to receive an education, but many of the local schools are unable to cope with present numbers, let alone with an increase in numbers. Apparently expansion has been explored and found to be impossible so where will any new children be schooled?

Likewise the local hospital is already at full capacity with no further room for expansion. It would find it very difficult to cope with an additional group of people with their own needs, including maternity care, health visits, etc. There is no dentist or GP surgery at Hatton Park at present so any new residents will be forced to turn towards Warwick, where services are already strained.

There are no other amenities on Hatton Park for new residents to use, which scarcely seems to fulfil the criteria set out for the travelling community.

Road safety
The proposed site at Oaklands Farm is right beside a main road (A4177), plus it is sited fairly close to a bend in the road and close to existing access points to the Shell garage and the turn into the lane leading to Ugly Bridge. The road becomes extremely busy, particularly at rush hour, and these points are already under heavy pressure. The road will struggle to support the additional traffic here. Access for large, slow-moving trailers will be particularly poor and lead to an increased risk of accidents.

In addition, any children located on this proposed site will be right beside a busy road, which they will have to cross to reach Hatton Park or walk along in order to reach Warwick. The danger of accidents will rise accordingly.

Canal safety
The proposed site at Oaklands Farm is right beside the canal. In fact, the site is penned in between the main road and the canal. Again, if children are present on the site then they will inevitably be attracted to the area beside the canal when playing and this will involve a greater risk of accidents and potential drownings.

Impact on local community
Apparently the council has already objected to the existing site and its current use as a farm. Whilst most of its activities seem to be entirely in keeping with a rural/agricultural way of life, it appears that some objections have been raised to some aspects. If the farm is converted into a site for travellers, surely this will only worsen matters. The travellers will need to work and to use this land for their employment, which will in all likelihood be more industrial than the existing fairly rural activities and which will inevitably have some impact on the surrounding area and the appearance of the site.

We will have little control over any environmental impact on a beautiful amenity in the form of the canal. It is very heavily used both by locals and visitors, especially in summer and fine weather. Any deterioration in the visual appearance of Oaklands Farm will have a huge impact on the attractiveness of the canalside and towpaths, resulting in a reduction in the numbers of visitors to the stretch and making use of the facilities such as the cafe and the pub.

The countryside should generally be protected from changes which will have such a huge impact on the natural and historic features of the community. The canal in particular will be seriously affected by such a change in its intended use, and this will have serious repercussions further up the canal towards the Hatton Arms & visitor centre if it is allowed.

The development will have a particularly serious impact on the local houses and roads leading towards the junction for Warwick Parkway. The small cluster of houses on the roadside near Oaklands Farm will be in serious danger of being taken over by the travellers' site. The new site will be separated from the existing houses by only one small field and there must be a huge risk of danger of encroachment with such a small buffer between the two plots, in addition to noise pollution from any activities carried out by the travelling community which will be to the detriment of the current residents. The size of the proposed site will unfortunately overpower the small number of houses in their community.

I further note that:

There is an inconsistency as the Council classes the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site as Grade 3 agricultural land that as such should be protected from development by the development of brown-field sites; as well as designating it 'Previously Developed Land' when selecting those potential Gypsy and Traveller Sites that are most suitable for development.

A key argument used by the Council for the rejection of Site 2 as a development site for houses was its proximity to the canal. Therefore the same criteria must also be used as an argument to reject the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.
Similarly a planning application concerning storing caravans at this site was recently rejected by Warwick District Council and by an Inspector at appeal, which is clearly completely incompatible with the designation of this site as a proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.

How is it that the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site, that opens onto the busy A4177 and is immediately adjacent to the proposed site for 70-90 new houses, is preferred over the Kites Nest site that is very much more isolated and not on a main road?

The proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site puts the longstanding businesses of the owner of the site at risk and reduces the value of the remaining land, with obvious negative consequences, which raises the possibility of the taxpayer being required to pay compensation for this.

In addition the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site would separate and dominate the longstanding community of 14 homes recognised to exist by the previous Inspector.

Finally, the comment concerning the "urban feel" of the land in question is completely wide of the mark. The section between the A4177 and the canal contains 14 private dwellings and a petrol station. The dwellings mostly have large gardens backing onto the canal, and the plot in question is actually known as "Oaklands Farm", which is hardly an urban feature. It appears that the presence of a main road and a filling station allows the Council to refer to this area as "urban", which is not the case at all. It has an extremely "rural" feel which is why the residents feel so strongly about this proposed development.

Having considered the plan to place a traveller/gypsy camp on Birmingham Road (GT19), I can only imagine that those planning the site have no idea of the actual location and have not visited the site.

Apart from the fact that it would be an eyesore for those who live in the area and those visiting the beautiful town of Warwick, many people walk, cycle and jog along the tow path and I imagine fewer would wish to use the towpath if it meant walking beside what will no doubt be a noisy and untidy area, thus reducing income for those who depend on visitors to the area.

Birmingham Road is a busy and dangerous road already (several fatalities in the past few years) and as children of travellers do not seem to be well controlled I think it is only a matter of time before one is either killed on the road or causes an accident which results in others being killed or injured. If the road doesn't cause death or injury the canal waters probably would.

I would be grateful if plans for this site could be reconsidered forthwith

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.

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles

Councils have received guidance from the Coalition during 2013 and who have categorically stated that the green belt should have the highest level of protection.

Have you considered the "diversity" of the area to make this proposal?

This development will blight the beauty and surrounding historical area of the canalside (Stairway to Heaven - 1799)

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 and eventually consume the immediate area. This will not promote and integrate co-existence at any level. The rubbish recently left by travellers who had parked up opposite the Shell Station was disgusting and not something that residents or visitors want to see on the doorstep. (Newspaper reports state that they create noise, crime and violence, Dale Farm being an example with all the trouble that was caused - 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. (I have experience of this .........)
* Previous planning applications by the owner of Oaklands Farm have been refused one reason being 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(s) 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 Response to Gypsy and Traveller Consultation at site; Oaklands Farm, Birmingham Rd, GT19 - 5 pitches proposed
On behalf of Hatton Parish Council we wish to object to the above site being one of your preferred options and state as follows;
On 4th February this year The Minister responsible for Travellers, Brandon Lewis MP, said:
"Our policy strengthens protection of the greenbelt and the open countryside by making clear that Traveller sites are inappropriate for greenbelt development and that local authorities should strictly limit the development of new Traveller sites in the open countryside. Unmet demand — whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing — is unlikely to outweigh harm to the greenbelt to constitute the exceptional circumstances that justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt."
Government policy has been supplemented by a Ministerial statement4 in July 2013 which, although focussing on development management decisions and the Interpretation of the G&TPP, sets the general approach expected by the Government with regard to providing sites in the Green Belt:

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

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

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

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

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

The recent and successful objections to the Kites Nest Lane Travellers site (which was less than a mile from this current suggestion) was based on the green belt arguments and looking closely at this we would point out as follow;

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

"For development to be allowed in the Green Belt, very special circumstances need to be identified. What constitutes very special circumstances are not identified by local planning authorities. The term is consequently a moving target as appear to be the weights and measures used to arrive at a weighted decision. The appellants (at Kites Nest) provided a list of 15 issues that could be considered as very special circumstances as to why the development should be allowed. These did not include such common issues as health, education or children. The issues are complicated and fraught. The Council considers that there are no special reasons for overthrowing the Green Belt policy

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

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

Please note that the Inspector also found, and the Secretary of State agreed that the Kites Nest site was situated within the local community of about 10 households, and that community would be dominated by a 13-pitch scheme. The same applied to an 5-pitch scheme.

This also applies to Oaklands Farm as it is situated between 4 houses to the south, the petrol station to the north followed by a row of around 10 houses, so the proposal if pursued would dominate the local community along this road. The 5 proposed pitches would increase the property density by 25% along this stretch of road and therefore change the local dynamics.

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

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

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

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

Another issue which the Council feel is worth mention here is the poor air quality of this site for the residents. This is a matter that has been considered in the past when looking at other sites. Proximity to such a busy main road inevitably means the air quality is poor.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site located on the Birmingham Road (Ref GT19).

This location is entirely unsuitable for this purpose because:

1. The site is Green Belt land and Warwick District Council have in the past few years rejected an application from the owner to put a caravan site there because it is Green Belt land.
2. The site is not safe for children - it is between a very busy road (A4177) and the canal and the railway line.
3. The nearest GP Practice and school are over a mile away in Hampton Magna.
4. The site would be located next to "Hatton Flight" locks on the canal and would spoil the character of the area. This is a place that many locals and tourists visit each year.
5. The site is low lying and adjacent to the canal with risk of flooding. The Birmingham Road has a problem with flooding along this stretch of road every year.
6 . The Birmingham Road has already had several accidents in the last few years, the increase in traffic and use of caravans and lorries on and off the site are likely to increase this risk.
7. The site is adjacent to residential properties who will lose considerable amenity due to the likely increase in noise and disturbance on the site.

I write to formally object to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site located on the Birmingham Road (Ref GT19).

This location is entirely unsuitable for this purpose because:

1. There are no convenient amenities nearby such as GP Practice, school, or shop. Access to the nearest of these will require the use of cars to travel as public transport is not easily available 'point to point', only to/ from Warwick itself. The site will therefore increase traffic and require direct access to the A4177 which is already substantially congested at peak hours.
2. The site is low lying and adjacent to the canal with risk of flooding. It has been flooded in the recent past.
3.The site is small and it is hard to seed how vehicular traffic could be contained in the space available - this will lead to vehicles using the main road verges and adjacent areas for parking and consequent un-sighting of access to the A4177 from local side roads. This will increase the risk of accidents at these adjacent junctions. It is also hard to see how the space can accommodate caravan rigs turning and manoeuvring so one might expect that these too will use the main road for this purpose. This is highly unsafe.
4. The site is adjacent to residential properties who will lose considerable amenity due to the likely increase in noise and disturbance due to the comings and goings on such a site.
5. The site is adjacent to the historic canal side and Hatton Flight locks. This is an internationally acclaimed and unique canal 'heritage' location which draws significant numbers of tourists each year. A Gypsy and Traveller encampment as the first visible aspect of the site will detract substantially from the landscape of the venue and is likely to significantly reduce visitors and consequent trade. The character of the area will be substantially degraded if the site goes ahead.
6. The site is adjacent to s significant volume of private residential dwellings both on the A4177 and on the Hatton Park estate. It is unlikely to promote peaceful co-existence with the local community, who regard it as a substantial loss of the character of the area and therefore their amenity.
7. The site, being small, is entirely unsuitable for the operations of businesses from the location by travellers who wish to do so. There is no easy way to allow 'passing trade' to safely pull off & on the A4177 without significantly decreasing the safety of the road and any reason for additional traffic on the A4177 needs to be avoided. As mentioned above, parking of multiple vehicles as required for business operations will not be possible on the small site.

see attached

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.

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.

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.

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.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached