GT02 Land abutting the Fosse Way close to A425 junction

No to Gypsy site in land off Radford Semele/Fosse Way.

WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation
I am writing to register my objections and give my views on the suitability of the following Gypsy and Traveller Preferred Options Consultation.

GT12/GTalt12 - Land at north and west of Westham Lane
* Warwick District Council (WDC) Criteria states that the site should have "convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport" - The nearest GP Surgery is nearly 5 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook and there is not an easy access from Barford.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should "avoid areas with a high risk of flooding" - This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should have "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site" - Vehicular access to this site is from the A429 trunk road (The Barford Bypass) which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of traffic accidents including a fatality. There is also inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. Access would be difficult and expensive whilst being very dangerous for both vehicle users and pedestrians
* WDC Criteria states that the site should "avoid areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance" - Noise levels from the By Pass and M40 roundabout can be heard through double glazing in the surrounding houses. The continuous noise from the Barford Bypass could not be reduced effectively or economically by constructing barriers.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should have "Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)" - There are no such services available in the area and the cost for supplying these for a small number of pitches would be considerable and therefore render the site uneconomical.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should be "Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment" - The
proposed site is on the busy route between the historic town of Warwick and the Cotswolds, and the impact on the landscape and tourism of a Gypsy and Traveller site would be immense.



WDC Local Plan Gypsies & Travellers Preferred Options Consultation - Cont/d
* WDC Criteria states that the "sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision" - The proposed site is green field and a satellite from Barford village, the development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity and character of the site.
* WDC Criteria states "Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" - The A429 Barford Bypass isolates the site from the village and therefore presents a physical barrier to integration with the village.
* WDC Criteria states "Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services" - This site does not fully meet with the provisions of Planning Policy for Gipsy & Traveller sites as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the proposed sites and the local community. It will also place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services. It would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
The Gypsy and Traveller community should be catered for and integrated into new, larger mixed development sites being proposed through the New Local Plan. Larger pitches would be more economical as opposed to smaller pitches which would drive down the pitch costs, gets economies of scale and has less impact on fewer communities and residents.

The following sites would seem eminently more suitable to a greater or lesser degree than the two proposed sites adjacent to Barford Bypass:

Sites GT02- Land Abutting Fosse Way at Junction with A425 (part) already has an immediate access to popular route for Gypsies and Travellers.

SiteGTalt03 Henley Road /Hampton Road - where the landowner is very keen to promote the site for the required purpose. The site is available and deliverable.

Warwick District Council should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, doctor's surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

Response: Consultation - Gypsy and Traveller Preferred Option Sites - Consultation

Ref: GT02 Fosse Way-Junction B425 and GT04 Harbury Lane-Fosse Way

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objection.

Dear Sir,
As a family, we have lived in Harbury for some 32-years and as a long standing resident, write to object to your proposals for a site GT04 and an alternative option site GT02
Your required consultations with neighbouring planning authorities, as required by government guidance has not occurred; your Chief Planning Officer admitted:
Between February 2012 and January 2013 there had been just 3-meetings with Stratford District Council, apparently only one of which had any minutes taken.
Quote: Chief Planning Officer WDC , "Although the council continue to hold dialogue with other councils and in particular Coventry City Council, Rugby Borough Council and Stratford District Council, sites within Warwick District have not been discussed at length."
Government guidance notes
P5: Point 4:2 "to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites"

P5: Point 9c: "consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries)
1. I can confirm community groups prior to the decision on the sites were not consulted. Although a meeting was held in Harbury AFTER GT02 and 04 were put forward as preferred sites, This was after the event as against the government's guidelines which state:
When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community."
2. The surgery and the school in Harbury were not consulted to identify if there was spare capacity.
3. This lack of consultation seems to have ignored government guidance 4.11: "to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure"
Of special concern was Warwick District Councils failure to carry out due diligence in respect of the Salford University GTAA report, which unfortunately has formed the basis of its decision-making.

In 2011, the WDC's report identified the need for just 15 TRANSIT pitches and that "demand for permanent site-based accommodation was low and transitory in nature". Yet now we are led to believe that in addition to 15 transit pitches, there is now a need (according to Salford) of 15 PERMANENT pitches. Who has questioned this discrepancy?

Your officers have advised these sites may require the use of compulsory purchase powers if necessary. However, it is an important oversight that no associated costings have been presented either for the purchase or loss of livelihood of those displaced by the compulsory purchase.
There is also further advice, of which your officers until recently have not been aware;
current guidance from Minister Eric Pickles Department of Communities and Local Government saying such powers of CPOs should NOT be used in relation to G&T sites.

This is confirmed in the following report from Hansard


Perhaps it would be prudent if your officers further investigate this, as there appears to be contradiction and use of invalid assumptions that render the Salford report flawed. (?)

There also appears to have been positive discrimination favour of gypsies and travellers, and insufficient publicity to advise local communities of proposals, many of the settled community in the local area are still unaware of the proposals, implications and consequences.
>>>
The following objections were previously made during the consultation phase:

a) Both GT02 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route. It is also a known that the Fosse Way is a high-risk accident black spot.

Specifically, GT04 Harbury Lane is busy, with a 50mph speed limit on vehicles traveling to the M40, Gaydon industrial areas, Leamington Spa and Warwick.
The Fosse Way has a 60mph speed limit. There is a continual stream of traffic and is particularly heavy at the peak commuting times when traveling to and from work locations.

The stretch of road between the A425 and the B4100 is an accident black spot with a high casualty rate = 68 casualties in last 5-years
The junction with Harbury Lane Fosse Way crossroad is particularly dangerous due to the speed and volume of traffic = 10 casualties in last 3-years.

An increase in vans, lorries, trailers and caravans as travellers enter, exit the sites and by their nature, will be slow traveling vehicle that will increase the hazard for road users.
>>>

The proximity to the local community: GT04 and GT02 do not meet the NPPF or PPFTS guidelines recommendation for sites to be on at least the edge of a community to encourage integration

The sites are remote from the facilities, and the bus service infrequent should the gypsies and travelers be inclined to use then. This would be doubtful when, like most others, they have modern vehicles that they would simply use.

Site users would in general, not use buses, even if running at a convenient time for schooling or the doctor's surgery. In cases of emergencies cars would be used; for these reasons alone, the sites are unsuitably located.
Distances and lack of safe footpaths make the possibility of walking unlikely / impossible; it would be unrealistic to expect walking to happen, making the site locations once again unsuitable.
This appears also to be against government guidelines for sites 4.11 states "which travellers can access education,"
>>>>
Accessibility to shops and local services: Clearly, these sites do not meet the NPPF guidelines nor those of Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) Planning Policy for Travellers sites (PPFTS) (March 2012) which recommends a 5-10mins walk on a pavement

The sites do not meet the NPPF and PPFTS guidelines and recommendations for availability of good infrastructure. This includes roads, pavement, street lighting, and broadband, cell phone reception. There are no pavements, no street lighting along the roads adjacent to both sites.
>>>>
The Harbury schooling and medical facilities are already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic. If 'cross border' liaison, as the government required, between Warwick DC and Stratford DC had happened, then this would have immediately been apparent.
>>>
Among other site requirements, your selected locations should not have a high risk of flooding.
However, site GT04 (+GT02 to a lesser extent) does have regular flooding. Flooding is not unusual along Harbury Lane and some serious flooding after heavy rains also has happened. Together with bad smells from the chicken farm, noises from the breakers yard, this site overall, makes a bad choice and any would be residents would soon realise this.

Aesthetically, site GT04 will directly impact on the views from the well-known Chesterton Windmill, which is an important heritage and tourist site given the historic nature and landscape of the surrounding area. Views toward GT02 from both the Radford Semele and Ufton escarpments would be also blighted with this location should it be developed

In Summary

I object to GT04 and GT02 sites on the basis that that there are more appropriate sites which satisfy the criteria

* These sites are not sustainable (a key requirement of NPPF and PPFTS)

* Gt02+GT04 do not meet any of the basic requirements of NPPF or PPFTS


* There is excess Gypsy and Traveller site capacity in Warwickshire, consequently, the need for these sites is based on a grossly flawed GTAA as there actual need is very much smaller than Salford have calculated the need to be.

* WDC have not properly consulted with neighbouring planning authorities as required


* The basis for the proposal around GT04 and GT02 is clearly positively discriminating against the settled community

* The local community of the area has not been properly consulted. The Warwick DC have advertised as they normally do, also latterly conducted (generally) poorly attended 'open days'

They can claim to have provided 'due notice to the public', yet the settled communities, in the main, remain uninformed; the communications exercise actually failed to convey the councils intentions and consultation process messages adequately.

CONSULTATION ON GYPSY & TRAVELLER SITES FOR WARWICK DISTRICT

1. CPRE Warwickshire responded to the Options consultation in 2013. At that stage in the process, CPRE supported two locations in principle, which we considered would meet the practical need for about 25 pitches. These locations were
* Siskin Drive, SE of Coventry (adjacent or close to existing Coventry City Council official site)
* Harbury Lane, at Hobson's Choice (preferably where containers are now stored)

2. These two locations are unfortunately not listed among those put forward during the 2013 consultation. The 2014 Preferred Options consultation document at table 5.1 lists sites stated to have been advanced by respondents in 2013, but neither of these is included in the table. CPRE doubts that the need is for as many as 25 pitches by 2017, as stated by the District Council. Gypsies and travellers often hold land in other Districts, which is not made know in the needs surveys; and there is a risk of double-counting between Districts.

3. The comments on sites below assume this figure of 25 pitches; 30 could be provided if necessary at the locations we suggest.

4. CPRE Warwickshire in summary supports the following locations:

* Hobson's Choice, Harbury Lane, SE of Whitnash 15 pitches
* Siskin Drive, by Coventry Airport, S of Coventry City Council official site 10 pitches
* Birmingham Road, Budbrooke up to 5 pitches
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way

5. This location is supported and was advanced by CPRE in 2013. We do not support the exact location, which would appear to take over or be alongside Leamington Football Club. This would be an exposed position not easily screened. We support the site on the map extract for GT04 called 'Hobson's Choice'. This is surrounded by a high earth bund, and is used currently for container storage. It lies behind Harbury Lane scrapyard and the old airfield hangar used for indoor go-karting. It would be very suitable for up to 15 pitches and would have no adverse effect on the surrounding environment. As Warwick District Council is willing to consider compulsory purchase of land, this site should be examined closely. The container storage activity need not be at this location and industrial land for it could be found elsewhere.

Siskin Drive, E of Coventry Airport

6. The failure to examine the Siskin Drive area further, and the rejection of it in the 2014 document without explanation, is regrettable. The established existence of the Coventry City Council official site at Siskin Drive, with no adverse environmental or social effects, indicates the general suitability of this area east of Coventry Airport. From the point of view of gypsies and travellers the site is also suitable as it has good road access and does not involve use of minor roads, and there are no private houses nearby. While the local authority boundaries at Siskin Drive are complex (Coventry, Warwick and Rugby all meet here), it should be possible for a Warwick District Council site to be located adjacent to or near the Coventry City Council site.

GT19 Birmingham Road, Budbrooke

7. This has had gypsy occupation in the past. The proximity of other buildings here and the non-agricultural nature of the land adjacent to the A4141 Birmingham Road makes this a potentially acceptable location, but only after the two sites listed above have been developed.


Response on other sites included in the 'Preferred' list (Consultation paper section 9) and on those not supported (Section 10, alternative sites)

GT12 W of Barford Bypass N of Shepham Lane

8. This is open countryside along the western side of the A429 Barford Bypass. It would be very visible, difficult to access and damaging to the setting of Barford. It should be dropped.

Gtalt01 Banbury Road, Warwickshire

9. A gypsy site on the historic road approach to Warwick town centre is not acceptable. This is still a classic rural approach to the historic town. The existing permission for caravans (non-gypsy) and the building of the access does not justify allowing this approach to be degraded by an unattractive and intrusive land use. The site is not being used at present and is better left empty so as to protect the historic approach and the setting of Warwick Castle Park.

GT02 Land at Fosse Way / A425

10. This is a large open landscape, between Radford Hill and North Fosse Farm. It is wholly unsuitable as a gypsy site, being very visible agricultural land. It is partly Grade 3a land and is next to a local wildlife site - the wood known as Parlour Spinney.

GT05 Tachbrook Hill Farm, Bishops Tachbrook

11. This is open farmland between the Banbury Road and Bishops Tachbrook village. With the M40 to the SW, the road is busy with traffic on and off the motorway. The junction between the Banbury Road and Mallory Road is not particularly safe; its rural location makes any junction widening or lighting highly damaging to the character of the immediate area.



Gtalt12 Land SE of Barford Bypass, Barford

12. This appears to have no merit at all as a site. The grounds for objection to GT12 (see above) apply equally to this site.

GT06 Park Farm, Banbury Road, Warwick

13. This is a large area of farmland at Park Farm, on the rural approach to the historic town of Warwick. It would be visible and harm this important setting to Warwick. It would be close to Warwick Castle Park. Similar reasons for objection apply to those listed above for Gtalt01, Banbury Road, Warwick.

GT08 Depot W of Cubbington Heath Farm, Cubbington

14. This location is only worth considering if HS2 is built on the line proposed, as it would then be degraded and could be acceptable as a gypsy site.

GT11 Hampton Road, south of Warwick Racecourse

15. The land north of Henley Road and east of A46 Warwick Bypass is part of Warwick's historic setting. Development of South West Warwick stops at the Henley Road. Urban development should not be allowed to cross it.

GTalt02 Woodyard, Cubbington Road, Rugby Road, Cubbington

16. This would be very harmful to the future of CubbingtonWood, which is replanted Ancient Woodland. The consultation document notes, "North Cubbington Wood is one of the prime cases for woodland restoration for the Princethorpe project which is a complex of woods and hedgerows, currently a Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Living landscape project funded by SITA Trust." A gypsy site here would harm the woodland's restoration and make it less attractive for visitors.

Gtalt03 Henley Road, Hampton-on-the-Hill

17. This site is being promoted by the owner. It would be very harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and to the current rural approach to Warwick from Henley-in-Arden if it were to be developed as a gypsy site. The consultation document fails to describe the appearance of this land or its prominence. It is where the Henley road comes over a crest and Warwick is seen on the skyline. It is too prominent a position to be considered.

I am writing to register our objections and give our views on the suitability of the following Gypsy and Traveller Preferred Options Consultation.

GT12/GTalt12 - Land at north and west of Westham Lane
* Warwick District Council (WDC) Criteria states that the site should have "convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport" - The nearest GP Surgery is nearly 5 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook and there is not an easy access from Barford.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should "avoid areas with a high risk of flooding" - This site sits within (part) and otherwise immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having significant flood risk.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should have "Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site" - Vehicular access to this site is from the A429 trunk road (The Barford Bypass) which was constructed as a bypass to Barford. It is a 60 mph speed limit road and there have been a significant number of traffic accidents including a fatality. There is also inadequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access into the village. Access would be difficult and expensive whilst being very dangerous for both vehicle users and pedestrians
* WDC Criteria states that the site should "avoid areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance" - Noise levels from the By Pass and M40 roundabout can be heard through double glazing in the surrounding houses. The continuous noise from the Barford Bypass could not be reduced effectively or economically by constructing barriers.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should have "Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)" - There are no such services available in the area and the cost for supplying these for a small number of pitches would be considerable and therefore render the site uneconomical.
* WDC Criteria states that the site should be "Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment" - The
proposed site is on the busy route between the historic town of Warwick and the Cotwolds, and the impact on the landscape and tourism of a Gypsy and Traveller site would be immense.

* WDC Criteria states that the "sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area. Site development will accord with national guidance on site design and facility provision" - The proposed site is green field and a satellite from Barford village, the development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the visual amenity and character of the site.
* WDC Criteria states "Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" - The A429 Barford Bypass isolates the site from the village and therefore presents a physical barrier to integration with the village.
* WDC Criteria states "Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services" - This site does not fully meet with the provisions of Planning Policy for Gipsy & Traveller sites as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the proposed sites and the local community. It will also place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services. It would have a material negative impact on the capacity of Barford St. Peter's School, especially given the village's status as a "Secondary Service Village" and its likely requirement to provide 70-90 new dwellings during the Plan period.
The Gypsy and Traveller community should be catered for and integrated into new, larger mixed development sites being proposed through the New Local Plan. Larger pitches would be more economical as opposed to smaller pitches which would drive down the pitch costs, gets economies of scale and has less impact on fewer communities and residents.

The following sites would seem eminently more suitable to a greater or lesser degree than the two proposed sites adjacent to Barford Bypass:

* Sites GT02- Land Abutting Fosse Way at Junction with A425 (part) already has an immediate access to popular route for Gypsies and Travellers.

* SiteGTalt03 Henley Road /Hampton Road - where the landowner is very keen to promote the site for the required purpose. The site is available and deliverable.

Warwick District Council should be requiring Gypsy and Traveller sites are delivered within the proposed major new housing developments. This would ensure that the sites could be properly designed in a sustainable fashion and be fully integrated into a local community which will provide facilities such as a school, doctors surgery and shops which are accessible on foot, on bike, by bus and by car.

I note that you have given Preferred Status to two G&T sites (GT02 + GT04) in the vicinity of Harbury. These sites were in your original discussion document and I raised my objections to them at that time. Below are my current ( and former objections).

In my opinion neither site should have got to this stage of the process as WDC has not, in my opinion, complied with government guidance in important areas (see below), which makes the whole process flawed and ipso facto any decisions resulting from said process invalid.

At the time the sites were originally considered there had been insufficient consultation as recommended in the government's guidance.
1. There was minimal contact with Stratford District Council. I have it in writing from the Chief Planning Officer that between February 2012 and January 2013 there had been just 3 meetings with SDC, only one of which had any minutes taken. Indeed, in the words of your Chief Planning Officer, "Although the council continue to hold dialogue with other councils and in particular Coventry City Council, Rugby Borough Council and Stratford District Council, sites within Warwick District have not been discussed at length."
In my opinion, this does not comply with the government's guidance notes
P5: Point 4:2
"to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites"
and 9c
"consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries)
2. Community groups prior to the decision on the sites were not consulted. A meeting was held in Harbury AFTER GT02 and 04 were put forward as preferred sites. This runs contra to the government's guidelines which state:
12- When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community."
3. The surgery and the school in Harbury were not consulted to identify if there was spare capacity. This is especially important given that I am led to believe money for extending any current facilities is either not available or extremely limited. This lack of consultation seems to be directly at odds with government guidance 4.11:"to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure"

The council failed to carry out any due diligence exercise on the Salford University GTAA report, which has formed the basis of its decision making. For example, WDC's own 2011 report identified the need for just 15 TRANSIT pitches and that "demand for permanent site-based accommodation was low and transitory in nature". Yet now we are led to believe that in addition to 15 transit pitches , there is now a need (according to Salford) of 15 PERMANENT pitches. Who has questioned this discrepancy?

Both sites will require the use of compulsory purchase powers. No costings have been provided either for the cost of purchase or for the loss of livelihood of those displaced by the compulsory purchase. This seems a fundamental issue, especially as current guidance from the ministry concerned with G&T sites indicates that such powers should NOT be used in relation to G&T sites.

Finally, I reiterate the following objections I made during the consultation phase:

a) Both GT02 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route . It is also a known that the Fosse Way is a high risk accident black spot and because of this, public transport would not be able to stop near the sites.

b) There is no separate provision for pedestrians or cyclists . Thus, at neither site is there any safe way for children to get to Harbury School without vehicular assistance (which seems, again, to run contra to government guidelines 4.11 "which travellers can access education,"). This would mean that the site would exacerbate parking and obstruction problems at the school, which have only recently been overcome . The school is already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic.
c) As far as I can tell, sites GT02 and GT04 have no running water, mains sewerage, drainage or mains gas supply. Whilst the later can be overcome with the use of butane gas cylinders, the former are essential for public health and the prevention of pollution of local water courses. Such pollution is likely to damage local wildlife, grazing livestock and be a health hazard. In addition, the GT04 site is close to a chicken farm and so would be subject to strong atmospheric smells and pollution.

d) I note that your document mentions that sites should not have a high risk of flooding. Site GT04 does have a risk of flooding given that it is affected by water run off from Harbury.

e) Site GT04 will directly affect the view from the well-known Chesterton Windmill, which is important given the historic nature of the surrounding area.

I would like to express my objections to the proposed sites GT02 and GT04.

My main concerns are as follows:-

1) The Salford GTAA report appears to ignore the impact of the planned transit site at nearby Southam which has been agreed since the completion of the GTAA.
2) According to government planning policy framework, adjacent district councils are required to collaborate but warwick DC and Stratford DC do not seem to be collaborating at any length, save for a reported 10 minute un-minuted meeting.
3) Both GT02 and GT04 sites do not meet national planning framework guidelines recommending 10 minute pavement walks to shops and amenities, they are around 45 minute walks and on dangerously fast roads.
4) Both sites do not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads,pavements,broadband,street lighting). Considerable investment would be required to rectify this and difficult for warwick DC to meet within its annual struggle to remain within budget.
5) GT04 is in an area prone to flooding with Harbury lane and surrounding fields often under water. In accordance with planning and building regulations, GT04 would be unable to use soakaway or run-off based drainage systems as the soil is clay based so connection to mains sewerage would be needed and this is not currently available in Harbury lane.
6) Regarding local services, the nearest GP surgery to both sites is over 3 miles away and is already stretched to capacity. The nearest primary and junior school is also at capacity and already experiences issues with lack of vehicle parking resulting in residents near the school being unable to exit their driveways as they are blocked in. this would only be exacerbated by additional vehicles from the GT02 and GT04 sites. If buses are required, where will the bus stops be? It would be dangerous for children at both sites to be waiting for buses at the side of the Fosse way or Harbury lane.
7) The cost to create 5 to 10 permanent pitches at GT04 ranges between £325k to £650k, using government's figures of £65k per pitch. There is no evidence that Gypsies and travellers would be willing to pay these sums and Warwick DC have not suggested an alternative means of raising the revenue required.
8) Development of The sites will damage wildlife habitat at a time when many species are declining in numbers. GT04 is in an area of good quality farmland utilised for livestock and arable farming.

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