GTalt12 Land at Barford By-Pass (green)

This is a prominent site outside the built up area and separated from the village by a 60 mph bypass. It is extremely visible to passing traffic and located where planning permission would not be given for development under normal policies. Crossing the road would be very dangerous. There is no GP Surgery in Barford and the school is full. This is a totally unacceptable use for this land. The land is adjacent to the "village park" which has recently been planted with an orchard. Siting a gypsy and traveller camp alongside this village amenity would completely ruin it. Any policy which seeks to develop this site for Gypsy and Traveller use is predicated on favouring one group of people over the general populace which is discrimination based on race (see the WDC Gypsies & Travellers Q and A Answer 1), that should be illegal.

This land is on the opposite side of a busy road to village amenities. A wonderful community orchard has been created here by villagers who have put a lot of work into this splendid facility. It would be a dreadful shame for all this work and effort to be wasted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

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

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

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

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

Barford Sites

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

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

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

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

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

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

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

True Localism and community effort by local people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norton Lindsey and Hampton on the Hill Sites

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

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

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

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

Barford Sites

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

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

Firstly GT12 Land North of Westham Lane - 8 pitches

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

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

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

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

True Localism and community effort by local people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Objection from local landowner will not promote a "peaceful"co-existence!

A VERY POOR SITE - very small and not a level site! - adjacent to derestricted very busy (>20K vpd) Barford Bypass on inside of a bend - very dangerous for access and very expensive to implement. NOISE from road not capable of mitigation - dangerous pedestrian access to village and road already has a significant accident record. No services on site and dangerous steep and high river bank adjacent to site.

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

I repeat my objections made in respect of GT12.
In particular the proximity to the river which could be a danger to children on the site and is relevant in so far as sewage disposal is concerned.

As with GT12 this site is :-
* a potential flooding area: (flooded in 1990s).
* >2 miles to a GP is hardly 'convenient' as either would need several buses to get there.
* unmonitored living by a river is:
-dangerous for children;2 drowned recently
-likely to pollute river particularly with no access to mains sewer.
* Busy Bypass produces
-high noise unless bunded
-crossing danger for motorists and pedestrians
* adverse visual impact on a section of a world-famous river.
* planning permission on this site would never be granted to villagers

TOTALLY UNSUITABLE - very fast/busy road - small site would be uneconomic to implement - pedestrian must cross A429 - steep river banks at rear of site - site NOT LEVEL,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is adjacent to the very busy, very fast A429, A gypsy site will increase the chances of accidents due to slow moving traffic turning into or out of the site, or due to the increased number of pedestrians trying to cross to Barford. Barford does not have the amenities to support a Gypsy site. The land is partly privately owned and the owner is against the site and should not be forced to sell against his wishes.

The site is the opposite side of Barford by-pass from the village & the traffic travels very fast (often in excess of the speed limit). The short time it has been open a number of accidents have happened on that road, some of them resulting in fatalities.
The doctors surgeries in Hampton Magna and Bishops Tachbrook are not accessible by public transport. The surgeries that are accessible are not accepting new patients from Barford.
Public transport to & from Barford is very limited.
The close proximity of the site to Barford by-pass will result in a considerable level of traffic noise.

Doctors surgery over 4 miles By road, unsafe road to cross high speeds with big accident ratio the A429 would also be very noisy with pollution, close to flood plain and impact existing areas if built on here, not integrated Into existing community due to a429, impact on greenfield landscape and character of village

My comments on GT12 also apply to GTalt12.
The river at this point can be deep and fast flowing. It would be irresponsible to encourage families to live here.
Both the landscape and Barford amenities, including the neighbouring walk and community orchard, would be adversely impacted.

I object to the proposed Site GT12 for the following reasons:
1)It is adjacent to a busy main trunk road with a designated 60 mph speed limit which already has a history of accidents. Access by vehicles or pedestrians would be considerably dangerous.
2)There is no safe crossing area to allow pedestrian access to local facilities and the road would act as a barrier, segregating the communities and restricting integration of the Gypsies and Travellers within in the existing community.
3)The proposed site is narrow and very close to the road and would be noisy and dangerous for families.
4)Access to a Drs surgery is not as easy as suggested in the plan; the nearest surgery is 4.4 miles away at Bishops Tachbrook and this is not easily accessible by bus or car.
5)There are currently no utilities services in the area of the proposed site and the cost of providing these for such a small number of pitches would not be economic.
6)The site is greenfield and seperate from the Barford community. Any developopment could not be integrated into the area without harming the character of the landscape.
7) The site does not comply with the Planning Policy for Gypsies and Travellers as it would not promote an integrated coexistence between the site and the local community and would put undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services.

There is no GP Surgery in Barford; the nearest is 4.4 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook. The school is full and expansion is not currently supported by Warwickshire County Council.
The area is very close to the River Avon and at risk from flooding.
The site is adjacent to the busy, national speed limit Barford Bypass (design speed of 60mph and a history of traffic accidents) - access would be difficult and expensive to achieve whilst remaining potentially very dangerous for vehicle users and pedestrians alike. Bus stops are only accessible to pedestrians crossing this busy road.
The continuous noise from the Bypass would be unacceptable and could not be reduced effectively or economically.Furthermore the Bypass isolates the site from the village and prevents integration.

There are no services available in the area so the cost overhead for supplying these for a small number of pitches would be considerable and render the site uneconomic.
The impact on Landscape and tourism of a Gypsy and Traveller site on this busy tourist route between the historic town of Warwick and the rural Cotswolds would be significant.
This isolated site on greenfield land is completely separated from Barford. As such it is not considered capable of accommodating development that could be successfully integrated into the landscape without materially
harming the character of the area.

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

Barford does not provide the services required: There is no GP Surgery in Barford, the nearest is 4.4 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook. The school is full and expansion is not currently supported by Warwickshire County Council. There are no services available in the area so the cost overhead for supplying these for a small number of pitches would be considerable and render the site uneconomic. Bus services are only accessible by crossing the busy and dangerous A429 Barford By-pass, designed as a 60mph road.
The site is adjacent to the busy, national speed limit Barford Bypass (design speed of 60mph and a history of traffic accidents) - access would be difficult and expensive to achieve whilst remaining potentially very dangerous for vehicle users and pedestrians alike. The continuous noise from the Bypass would be unacceptable and could not be reduced effectively or economically. Furthermore the Bypass isolates the site from the village and prevents integration.
The impact on Landscape and tourism of a Gypsy and Traveller site on this busy tourist route between the historic town of Warwick and the rural Cotswolds would be significant.
This isolated site on greenfield land is completely separated from Barford. As such it is not considered capable of accommodating development that could be successfully integrated into the landscape without materially harming the character of the area.
This site does not fully accord with the provisions of Planning Policy for Gipsy & Traveller sites as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and does not avoid undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

VERY POOR CHOICE - too small to be viable - very dangerous noisy road location and dangerous pedestrian access to facilities. No services at site and deep water nearby. Not a level site.

There is no GP surgery close to the site.Barford school has insufficient capacity. Public transport is very limited. The access to the road is very unsafe with a number of fatal accidents. Noise from the bypass could be a nuisance. Integrating the site with the local community will clearly be an issue. It will place pressure on local infrastructure. The very nature of a traveller is such that they want to travel and therefore will not want to lay down roots in one area for work.

The A429 has upward of 15k vehicles travelling along it everyday. Safe access on to and off this stretch of road can be hazardous particularly for vehicles that take time to get travelling speed. This is evidenced by traffic accident reports. Further more this road represents the gateway to the Cotswolds and a site next to this main road will adversely impact tourism as well as the countryside vista and landscape.

Objection to GTalt12. A site adjacent to the historic village of Barford will undoubtedly harm the character of the village and surrounding area, will negatively impact tourism and visitor numbers to local pubs and the hotel. It is also impossible to understand how the site promotes integration with the local community, or is not seen as putting undue pressure on local infrastructure, especially the roads through Barford. Safety implications re access from A429 also prohibit site for consideration.

I wish to object to the proposed site of GT 12 and GTalt12, Barford due to the following reasons based upon WDC Criteria:

The nearest GP Surgery is 4.4 miles away by road in Bishops Tachbrook and is not easily accessible from Barford and both sites are still either within or very close to flood plains (reference Environment Agency). The sites are adjacent to the A429 Barford bypass which is a fast road with a history of significant accidents including a recent and very distressing fatality. Access would be difficult and expensive to achieve whilst remaining potentially very dangerous for vehicle users and pedestrians alike plus there is significant noise from the road which could have an adverse effect on the occupants of the site. Both sites are cut from Barford by the bypass which means the sites would be difficult to integrate. It appears much more sense to incorporate the new sites within the framework of the proposed housing developments off Europa Way as these must surely lead to better integration, efficient and economic planning of the sites and the significant convenience of services available on site. These sites would then become at one with the new housing straight from inception. It also seems easier to have a smaller number of larger sites rather than many smaller sites that are slotted piecemeal into the area. Again due to integration and economics this surely is preferred?

Regarding the G & T site consultations, Barford Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council have reviewed all the sites under examination and commented thereon. As a Councillor for Barford I commend our deliberations to you for serious consideration.

I also wish to make personal comment on the sites which are proposed alongside Barford Bypass, namely GT12 and GTalt12 as follows:-

Almost half of the site designated as GT12 consists of the storm overflow and pollution pond and ditch systems constructed as part of the works associated with Barford Bypass. These are not of course available for other development without compromising the integrity of the drainage of the Bypass and the pollution protection of the river. The choice of this site would appear to be the result of a desk study lacking in local knowledge and examination in the field.

GT12 is in an open area of the Avon valley, close to the river and with spectacular views along and across the valley.
It is on a popular north - south tourist route.
The location of GT12 would under no circumstances be granted permission for development for domestic or other use. It would contravene almost every single one of the planning guidelines to which the Parish and District councils normally work.
It is astonishing that those who would be the guardians of these rules and values can see fit to put them aside and propose a totally alien development in this rural landscape.
The site is close alongside a busy 60 mph A-road. The noise levels at this proximity are quite unpleasant to say the least.
The site is close alongside a large storm overflow and pollution pond containing deep standing water with steep banks.
The site is close to the river containing several deep pools and swift currents.
The above three factors make this a dangerous location for children.

GTalt12 suffers from all of the above disadvantages, except close proximity to the pollution pond, but also is situated on a bend of the 60 mph road and also would render the agricultural holding non-viable.

Both of these sites would require CP Orders which would be contested by the landowners and resisted by the inhabitants of Barford.

There are other far more suitable sites and I would again commend to you the JPC analysis and comments. GT12 and GTalt12 should be discounted

1. The land is not available as we are not willing sellers.We object to the use of CPO powers which we consider are not appropriate as the use would not be in the public interest.
2. The site is inadequate on its own.There is a tree plantation on the west side and the village orchard on the east side.There is no scope to extend the site.
3. The site would occupy a prominent location and would spoil panoramic views.
4. There are no public services on the west side of the A46.
5. The location is not one where a planning consent would normally be granted for any form of residential development.
6. The adjoining A46 carries fast moving traffic and access into and out of the site would be dangerous.
7. There are other suitable sites most notably GTalt 01 and GT15.In addition the Council should seek to require that any site(s) should be located as part of the major developments around Leamington,Warwick or Kenilworth where appropriate infrastructure can be provided.

I object to the sites GT12 & GTalt12 at Barford on the following grounds:

Harmful to the open flat landscape being within the Feldon Parkland/Terrace farm landscape an area of importance and should be protected from unsuitable development such as proposed which is out of character for the area.
The layout would form a ribbon type of development along side the road, One of the reason that the Town and Country Act was created.
The visual open views into the rural countryside and also looking inwards towards the village from across the river will be spoilt.
Light pollution from the development will also cause harm to the rural atmosphere of the area at night.
The development adds an extension to the built up area of the village extending beyond the bypass.
The proposal for GT12 would sever the service road serving the collection pond which was part of the planning application requirements for the Bypass.
As this field for GT12 consist of the owner entire land holding any reduction in its size will have greater impact on the financial variability that it can earn.
There are great safety issues for pedestrians crossing and for vans with trailers, etc gaining access to and from the bypass which is an unrestricted main road for both sites.
The school in recent years has been expanded to cope with the village needs and Barford is not classed as a growth village and so there no need to expand the school.
The village has very little services only one community store, no doctors.

Sites Specific.
Possible sites should also be investigated on the approach into Warwick from Longbridge were there are areas suitable on either side of the road including land belonging to the District Council. Also within or near the proposed development areas of Kenilworth near the A46 which would give easy links to more Motorways.
There are sites mention in the Council consultation list which are more suitable and less harmful to the countryside should be used / reconsidered as suitable:-
GT01 (as part of the employment land). GT02, GT04, Also at by the breaker Yard GT08, GT11, GT15,Also next to the Motorway Police depot. GT19, GTalt02, GTalt09, Gtalt11(This area is now becoming a rural development zone so is more suitable) & GTalt16.
The Council in its Local Plan should be making provision for these sites within the proposed large development areas both residential and employment land as part of the community package.
It is also wrong to be concentrating the majority of sites within the small area of the south side of the District and having many small sites as oppose to one or two, some should also be located in the north of the District and all of them should be under the control of the Council.

Barford Residents Association wishes to submit an objection to site GT 12 as a preferred option based on the criteria stated on P 13 of the Preferred Options Document March 2014
1. The first criterion is for convenient access to a GP surgery. There has not been a GP surgery in Barford for over 30 years. The nearest surgery quoted is in Bishops Tachbrook which is a difficult 4.4 miles away by road. Although there is a school and buses do pass through the village hourly during the day - the need to cross the Barford Bypass means that these services are not easily accessible by pedestrians.
2. The western part of the area falls within the flood plain. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.
3. Safe access to the road network would not be possible. Large slow moving vehicles trying to enter or leave this site would cause an unacceptable and unnecessary hazard on a fast moving (60 mph) road that already has a poor accident record. (12 notifiable accidents, 3 severe and 1 fatality since opening in 2006)
4. The Barford Bypass is adjacent to the site and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding locating development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance. When the Barford Bypass was built compensation was paid to several households on the West side of Barford in respect of the noise disturbance caused. Site GT 12 is much closer to the Bypass than these houses and caravans are thin walled and provide little attenuation for occupants. This is proposed as a site for only 8 pitches - but if noise reduction measures are to be taken then the area needed for this would significantly reduce the space available for sites and make the site un-viable.
5. There are no utilities within the proposed area so these would have to be provided. The cost of providing these would make it an uneconomic proposition.
6. The Council has produced no evidence in relation to the ecological and biodiversity importance of the land within the areas proposed. Development in this area would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity interest contrary to the provisions of the NPPF. The area contains a number of protected species including water voles and badgers. This represents a failure to accord with the Council's proposed criteria to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment.
7. As site GT12 is in flat open countryside any new development could not be considered to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness. If a site of eight pitches is planned within GT12 then a significant development of some 1.8 hectares including at least eight or so permanent amenity buildings could not be integrated into the landscape without harming the unspoilt character of the area.
8. This site is physically separated from the settlement of Barford by the Bypass. It will not be possible to achieve peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the village as the Bypass will cause a natural barrier.
9. Undue pressure will be placed on the local infrastructure which is stretched at the moment and will be further strained by the addition of 70 - 90 houses allocated in the New Local Plan. In particular the school is full at present - and although only 8 pitches are planned we are advised that Traveller families tend to be larger than average and this could result in more than 20 extra places being required.
There are some additional factors that are relevant to the decision but do not fit into the response categories defined.
The proposed site is Grade 2 agricultural land. It forms part of a small holding and selecting this area as a Gypsy & Traveller site will render the holding un-viable. The loss of this resource is not necessary and selecting an alternative site would enable this to be conserved.
The owner of the site is not willing to sell and Compulsory purchase proceedings would therefore need to be initiated. This will necessarily take a long time and is not guaranteed to be successful. No previous CPOs have been granted for Gypsy & Traveller sites in England. We are aware of one CPO by Mid Suffolk DC that has failed. There are alternative sites where the owner is willing to sell or the land is currently owned by WCC. These sites should be considered in preference to sites that may not be deliverable.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
BRA supports the proposal that a number of the required Gypsy and Traveller sites should be accommodated in the new housing developments allocated in the Local Plan. This will give Warwick District Council the opportunity to address all the Gypsy and Traveller's needs at the planning stage rather than imposing them on existing communities.
The new Local Plan proposes a residential site at Thickthorn near Kenilworth. Currently the site is in the Green Belt and this indicates that WDC is willing and able to adjust the Green Belt boundaries to accommodate new development. The Publication 'Planning Policy for Travellers Site DCLG March 2012' states that 'a Local Planning Authority can make an exceptional limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary which might be to accommodate a site inset within the Green Belt to meet a specific identified need for a traveller site. It should do so only through the plan making process and not in response to a planning application. If land is removed from the Green Belt in this way it should be specifically allocated in the Development Plan as a traveller site only.' The WDC decision to exempt the green belt from the areas allocated for Gypsy and Traveller sites has resulted in an unacceptable concentration of these sites in the South of the District. This is evident in the brochure where the plan of the Green and amber sites is at twice the scale of the red sites and all the green sites are in the Southern half of the map. The council are currently preparing the New Local Plan and thus have an opportunity for a full review of the Green Belt throughout the whole district. Section 9 of the NPPF about protecting Green Belt land also makes it clear that the Local Plan is an opportunity to review the boundaries of the Green Belt.
SUMMARY
Barford Residents Association strongly objects to the inclusion of Site GT12 as a preferred site for a Gypsy and Traveller site to be located.
It fails all the criteria set out by Warwick District Council for a suitable site.
Necessary measures to reduce noise at the site from the adjacent Barford Bypass would reduce the available area to such an extent that less than 5 pitches that could be established making the site unviable.
The need to use a Compulsory Purchase Order to obtain the site and the likelihood that this will fail makes the site undeliverable.
FOOTNOTE
Although this objection is to the selection of GT 12 as a preferred site it should be noted that these comments are equally applicable to site GT alt 12, (not on the preferred list) which is nearby and also separated from Barford by the Bypass.

I have been made aware of the proposals for the Barford area, Warwick and wish to comment as follows :

Site ref GT12 This site has a number of dangers and difficulties for Travellers.

1. A long narrow site with difficult access for vans and trailers.
2. Adjacent to the A429, a very busy road with fast traffic, 60 mph limit. This section is the new Barford bypass.
3. Very close to the junction for Barford village and the road to Leamington Spa which is difficult and busy now.
4.Very few local services are available in Barford. No Doctor, no Dentist, no service station. No Secondary School and no shops except the community store in the village hall.
5.The land is prime agricultural land producing good grazing.

The proposed site ref: GTalt12 is very close to GT12 and poses all of the above problems for travellers.

I think a better safer site is on the old A41 , now A4100 Banbury Road at the Asps Warwick. If it has been selected I don't have the reference number. The site seems to have planning for caravans but remains undeveloped for many months now. It is close to Warwick with its many facilities.

I do hope you will consider my comments and let me have your acknowledgement.