GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road (amber)

I object to this option for the following reasons:
1) Local schools are already oversubscribed. WCC have already stated that the are not enough places for children already, hence the new super priority area. Suggesting places are available on the Woodloes is quite rediculous as this is hardly local.
2) Access to this plot is very dangerous. This is a 50 mile an hour area. It is very close to the Purser Drive junction and also close to the access to Budbrooke Lodge.
3) Hampton Road has been regularly flooded this Winter. The street drains clearly cannot cope with any more run off. This extra hardstanding will make this worse. The local fields have also been heavily water logged over the winter.
4) The site is very close to residential areas and Budbrooke lodge. There is noise implications to this. Caravans do not have the same noise insulation that houses do. This site is very open. A motor bike was recently tested on the access road and the noise amplification was awful.
5) This site would be very open and this wouldn't be in keeping with the local houses.
6) Compulsary purchase of the land would not give the land owners the value that the land is worth. As I believe this is a Warwick charity it is especially important that the full purchase potential is realised as the people of Warwick benefit from this money.
7) Local car parks are currently used as transit area travelling gypsies and also for travelling fairs and circus'. This is too much on top of this. In the last month alone area has seen circus, fair and travelling gypsies.

I would like to object to the potential location of a gypsy and traveller site in Warwick by Hampton Road and the Racecourse.

Having read your report and assessment of the sites, I note that the Hampton Road location is deemed to be Amber and not therefore ruled out.

We have first-hand experience of the issues caused by the current illegal site set up on Tapping Way which just reaffirms the feeling that choosing the Hampton Road site would be the worst possible result for the largest proportion of affected local residents.

This weekend will see one of the most important weekends for tourist visitors and the first impressions gained will be based upon an illegal traveller campsite. If the decision is taken to move ahead with Hampton Road, the same problem will exist for years to come along this route into the town inevitably leading to reduced visitor numbers, in particular to the racecourse. This will be compounded by racehorse trainers and owners not wanting to send horses to a course with an increased risk of equine disease and unleashed dogs.

As I originally stated in my objection, my firmest objection remains that the purpose of selecting sites is to ensure tensions are reduced between settled and traveller communities and that of the 20 sites earmarked, the site on Hampton Road is far and away the closest to a built up residential area so must be the most unsuitable on this criteria alone.

It is my understanding that the land on Hampton Road (GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Race Course and Hampton Road) is being considered as an alliterative site for the proposed Gypsy and Travellers.


Whilst I understand the site is not currently a "Preferred Option", I would like to take this opportunity to register my strong opposition to the traveller sites (that have been proposed as an "Alternative") for site Hampton Road (GT11).

I live on the Chase Meadow estate and my daughter attends Newburgh School, which even with it's double form entry is operating at full capacity for the current reception year and the September 2014 reception year. The Chase Meadow estate is dramatically increasing in size and new families are moving onto the estate swelling the population and putting more demand on the facilities available. It is my concern that the schools in the area will not be able to cope with a further increase in pupils outside the anticipated increase that has been expected from the new houses on the estate.

My family is registered with the local GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) as are many families on the estate and the availability for appointments is already restricted due to the sheer number of patients, this will only increase as the estate grows and my concern is that the surgery cannot cope with the number of additional patients that the traveller sites may house.

Warwick is a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually in conjunction with Stratford Upon Avon. The proposed Hampton Road and Junction 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved. The Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending events.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and file my objections.

It is my understanding that the land on Hampton Road (GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Race Course and Hampton Road) is being considered as an alliterative site for the proposed Gypsy and Travellers.

Whilst I understand the site is not currently a "Preferred Option", I would like to take this opportunity to register my strong opposition to the traveller sites (that have been proposed as an "Alternative") for site Hampton Road (GT11).


The basis for my objection is based on the factors which I will outline below.

- School Places;
It is my understanding that the children from traveller communities will be given a higher priority with regards to the allocation of school places and this is a concern that the schools in the proposed areas would be unable to cope with any potential increase.
This is two-fold. Firstly, with the projected school intakes for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 based on the birth rates in the area and secondly, taking into account the large extensions to family estates such as Chase Meadow where it is not possible to estimate the additional places required.

- GP Access;
Living on Chase Meadow, I know how difficult and stretched the GP Surgery (The New Dispensary) is and my concern is that this surgery can not cope with the number of additional patients that the proposed sites may house.

- Infrastructure;
Chase Meadow is largely unadopted by the council and it already suffers with issues surrounding speeding on the estate and leading to and from the estate. One of the proposed sites (plot 11) is located on the border between a 30mph and 60mph limits. My concern is the additional traffic flowing through the chase meadow estate and the need to police the speed limits on the unadopted roads.
Hampton Road is a fast road and the concern of an additional turning so close to an existing turning on this type of road is a risk to the residents safety.

- Aesthetics of the Warwickshire countryside.
Warwick is such a beautiful and historic town for which tourists travel to visit annually. Having seen a number of traveller sites over recent years and months, the risk to the tourism economy for Warwick has to be taken seriously.
The proposed Hampton Road and Junc 15 sites are key routes into Warwick and should be preserved.
Also, the Hampton Road site is located next to the Flat Straight for Warwick Race Course and will be visible to those attending the races.


I would like to thank you for taking to the time to read and file my objection to these proposed traveller sites and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the forthcoming meeting.

I would like to object to this site being on the reserve list. This site is not suitable as although it is close to local facilities, none of these have capacity. The very close nature of this site to local established houses is not acceptable. The schools cannot cope with current demand and especially not more. The local doctors is not suitable. The location of this site on one of the main entrances to Warwick would be an unsightly first view of this historic town. This area already has a hard standing area used by travellers as well as the nearby car park being used for travelling fairs and circuses. The road is dangerous and i witnessed Travelling children running backwards and forwards across this busy road recently. The land gets very wet and is a run off for rain water. Use of this land would be unsuitable or cause potential for local flooding when concreted over. This site cannot be integrated without harming the area character. There is a high chance of noise disturbance. I understand the land is owned by Henrys trust and as a large charity donor locally, including large grant to the local community centre, I would not like to see them disadvantaged due to the support they provide. With the huge amount of houses being built in Warwick this is just another overloading element. The location of this site next to the racecourse is a hazzard from dogs and horses and would also put local walkers off using our public land. Finally the road is not only dangerous for pedestrians but would also be unsuitable for turning vehicles and I would be requesting the council to build the roundabout at Chase Meadow junction that was deemed not required.

I object to this site. The site floods, will create traffic problems on a busy road, is likely to have a detrimental effect on the racecourse, will have an adverse effect on the town of warwick, will place additional pressure on the local infrastructure which includes an already busy GP surgery, incomplete roads and a housing estate which is increasing in size with additional housing. A Gypsy site will also cause blight to house values and tensions with the local residents will be high.

We object to preferred site option at Birmingham Road Budbrooke and alternative sites at Budbrooke Lodge and Hampton Road, Hampton on the Hill on the following grounds which were raised at the Warwick Parish Council meetings.

We at Hatton Station do not enjoy the infrastructure which would support this kind of influx of settlement and population. We have no playing fields or playgrounds for children and teenagers, no pavements, no street lighting and very slow broadband. The local lanes are narrow and traffic such as school buses are more and more frequent, and dangerous to local rural horseback riders.

The local school at Fernculme is fully subscribed as are Snitterfield and Hampton Magna schools. Our local GP surgeries and Warwick hospital are under strain. With no street lighting and Warwickshire lighting being dimmed nighttime crime is on the increase. We are increasingly under threat from crime in broad daylight which just 5 years ago did not exist in this area. The incidents are all there to see in our neighbourhood watch scheme.

Finally, we only heard of the deadline for objection from our neighbours at number 28 since they had received an email from WDC. Why not everyone? This is a stealthy approach. Communications should be to all in the District affected in fairness to us who pay our council taxes and live here.

Ideal site - all facilities and services available nearby and actually close to but separate from settled population - a pedestrian crossing would solve access problems

1) I support all five sites listed as Preferred Options
2) I object to inclusion of site GT11 in the list of Alternative Sites, for reasons stated in my submission to initial consultation of June 2013, as per attached file
3) i reserve the right to submit further comments and/or objections on any listed site(s) prior to any final decisions being made by the Council

SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS, JUNE 2013
SITE GT11 - SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
I was quite shocked to learn that this land, labelled GT11, adjacent to the Chase Meadow estate, is being considered by the Council for use as a possible large scale permanent site for Gypsies and Travellers (Gypsies and Travellers Sites - Options for Consultation, June 2013, Warwick District Council) in connection with its new Local Plan.
Indeed, there are so many reasons why the use of a large part of this land as a Gypsy and Traveller site cannot possibly fit any rational planning policy criteria that, as a qualified planner, I have to question why it was ever considered in the first instance?
It is hard to know where to start with objections to this proposal but in this detailed submission I set them out in three sections as follows:
 Objections to the Council's approach to needs assessment, which underpins the subsequent site search options.
 Specific objections to site GT11.
 Recommendations for a sustainable approach to site search and assessment, with additional potential sites proposed.
Throughout this submission, 'GTC' refers to Gypsy and Traveller Community; 'the Council' refers to Warwick District Council (WDC); 'the District' refers to Warwick District.
OBJECTIONS TO OVERALL APPROACH
1. Assessment of Accommodation Need - General Approach
The document 'Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012 is part of the National planning framework and sets out guidance in respect of the government's aims in respect of traveller sites, an extract from which states:
 to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies
 that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for planning purposes

In addition, the 2011 Localism Act sets out a 'duty to co-operate' in the production of joint development plans on a cross-authority basis, especially where a local planning authority has planning constraints across its area as in Warwick District where the Green Belt covers 81% of its modest 109 square miles, (in comparison Stratford District contains 378 square miles).
However, in respect of the foregoing, the Council admits it has attempted to, but failed to liaise and work with adjacent councils, both in assessment of need and in the identification of suitable sites, and has therefore continued to try and identify land within its own boundaries to serve its own need, ie at a relatively small geographical scale.
Such an approach makes little sense in relation to the GTC, which is by its very nature transient, and where administrative boundaries have little if any, relevance. Thus identification of need and planning of site provision is best carried out at a larger (sub-regional or county) scale in order to be strategic, robust, rational and equitable.
The Council's approach to this issue can therefore be seen to be fundamentally flawed, even at this preliminary stage.
2. Assessment of Accommodation Need - Quantification
Since 2008 there have been a whole series of GTC accommodation needs assessments for permanent pitches the District, with widely varying results.
The original 2008 (South Housing Market) assessment identified a District requirement for 11 permanent pitches, subsequently the Regional Spatial Strategy allocated 23 to the District for the period 2007 - 2017.
However the Council subsequently rejected this figure suggesting it was based on limited evidence and therefore not robust or reliable, and undertook its own assessment which reported in April 2011. This concluded that demand for permanent GTC sites in the area was 'low and transitory in nature' and recommended provision of a 12 pitch transit site only, (15 caravans).
In 2012 the Council appointed consultants from Salford University to carry out a detailed assessment of GTC accommodation needs within the District. Although the final report is quite lengthy, the key figure of 31 permanent pitches (2012 - 2026), is based fairly simplistically on current (2012) unauthorised encampments of 23 pitches (1 pitch = 1 household). However, their separate estimate, from interview survey, of the number of GTC households 'based in the District' was 30, but of these, only 7 were actually living in caravans, the rest were living in bricks and mortar houses!
In view of their wide range, the reliability of all these estimates of GTC permanent pitch need must be questionable.
OBJECTIONS TO SITE GT11
Site Location and Nature
This is a substantial area of search, within which a large site of 12 pitches/19 caravans would be located i.e. approximately 6,400 m2 in area, (at 500 m2 per pitch). Such a site would be expected to accommodate some 45 persons, based on an average GTC household size of 3.7, however it is not unreasonable to take this as a minimum estimate for planning purposes.
Bounded by mature trees to the A4189, it is currently in use as farmland but also contains a spur to the racecourse track and one large residential property. The area is less than 20 metres via the A4189 from the edge of Chase Meadow, a large residential estate of approximately 1,000 dwellings, due to increase to approximately 1,400 when fully developed. Hence present and future population figures of 4,000 and 5,600 respectively can be estimated for the estate at an average of 4 persons per dwelling.
Assessment against Policy Criteria
The suitability of GT11 can partly be determined by assessing the extent to which the site meets, or fails to meet, each of the 10 policy criteria as listed in the Council's document 'Sites for Gypsies and Travellers', June 2013, paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, as listed in the next section.
It should be noted however that these ten are not necessarily the only or the most appropriate criteria, have not been consulted upon, moreover they do not fully take into account the National guidance ('Planning Policy for Travellers Sites', March 2012), as they omit a key National policy requirement, namely the protection of local amenity - see page 7.
1. Convenient access to a GP surgery, school, and public transport
Whilst access to these may be physically convenient, both the local GP practice on Chase Meadow and both Newburgh Primary and Aylesford schools have no spare capacity, primarily due to existing demand from the resident population of the Chase Meadow and Forbes Estates and from projected future demand from the former - an additional 1,600 persons. Moreover, in the case of the schools, the demand on teaching time and resources from the GTC is likely to be disproportionately greater per pupil than from the settled community, due to the former's well documented special educational needs
CONCLUSION - FAILS
2. Avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding
The site is directly bounded to the east by the Gog Brook and a tributary stream to the north, the former falling within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 3, hence a measurable risk of flooding is present. (See also under 3. below)
CONCLUSION - FAILS
3. Safe access to the road network and provision for parking, turning and servicing on site
In the vicinity of the site, there is already a high volume of peak time traffic flows along the A4189 Hampton Road with eastbound traffic approaching at relatively high speeds and considerable traffic turning movements from and into the Chase Meadow and Forbes estates. Due to the high levels of GTC vehicle ownership, the proposals for this site would significantly exacerbate traffic congestion by generating additional flows and turning movements, in particular of large, slow moving commercial vehicles, many towing caravans and/or trailers. Moreover, this is a road that is subject to periodic flooding in the vicinity of the racecourse main entrance, and where the road is restricted in width due to parked vehicles along the residential frontage.
CONCLUSION - FAILS on safe access
4. Avoiding areas where there is the potential for noise and other disturbance
The site is subject to significant traffic noise from the adjacent A46. A related issue is the 'noise and disturbance' which might be generated by the resident GTC themselves and so would be likely to adversely affect the amenity of adjacent Chase Meadow residents. CONCLUSION - FAILS
5. Provision of utilities (running water, toilet facilities, waste disposal, etc)
As this is essentially a green field site, there are no utilities present; they would all have to be provided from scratch at considerable cost and higher than that for other brown field equivalents.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
6. Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment.
This is a sensitive urban fringe location, adjoining the Green Belt boundary at the A46 by pass, and this importance was reflected in its designation by the Council in 2012 as a 'Green Wedge' search area, areas that the Council are committed to protecting in future:
The Council will identify and protect a network of green wedges important for their ecological, landscape and/or access functions in the setting of differing urban areas and urban rural fringe. It is intended that this approach will revise and replace the existing policy of Areas of Restraint in the Local Plan 1996 - 2011.'
(New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, paragraph 15.14).
Related to the above, the site lies at a key 'Gateway Route' via the A4189, into the town of Warwick. Despite screening, due to its large scale there would most likely be an adverse visual impact from the perspective of both the racecourse and the A4189. In particular in the case of visitors and coach borne tourists approaching from the east, their first visual impression of Warwick, a town of national historic and cultural importance, would be a large gypsy encampment!
CONCLUSION - FAILS
7. Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area.
As for 6. above.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
8. Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community
Site locations close to existing residential areas are more likely to increase rather than reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities, especially if both are at larger scales as with GT11. This is due to fundamental incompatibilities between the two communities, arising from the nature of the GTC culture, way of life and economic activity, and regardless of whether sites are authorised or not.
There is also evidence that crime and antisocial behaviour increases due to the presence of large numbers of the GTC in a locality.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
9. Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services
As for 1. and 3.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
10 Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location) thereby omitting many travel to work journeys, can contribute to sustainability
There will be no net increase in 'sustainability' as the same factors already apply to existing unauthorised sites, and all GTC sites will generate many 'travel to work' journeys. Moreover, to the extent that these sites are commercial and industrial in nature as well as residential, this is clearly incompatible with established planning principles of zoning and separation and likely to be detrimental to local amenity and environment. ie detract from 'sustainability'.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
The protection of local amenity is an important consideration in any planning process and a specific requirement of the government's March 2012 guidance for traveller sites: 'for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment'
It has already been noted this key aspect is not even included in the Council's 10 criteria, and one has to question why - could it be because the Council are fully aware that GTC sites invariably have a detrimental effect on local amenity, and extending beyond the boundaries of the sites themselves?
There have been several large scale unauthorised gypsy encampments in the District in recent years, including locations in Kenilworth, on Warwick Racecourse and on Myton Fields. In all these cases it is on the record that the sites have been left badly littered and degraded when vacated, requiring costly clean up and remediation work, all paid for out of public funds. Similar ongoing negative impacts are likely to be generated with permanent sites, which could affect the amenity of any adjoining residential areas. The larger the sites and the closer to the residential areas, as in the case of GT11, the larger the impacts are likely to be.
CONCLUSION - FAILS
SITE SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT
Site Search and the Green Belt
Twenty options for sites/areas of search are listed, the sizes are not given but many comprise substantial areas. The distribution of these sites within the District is noticeably skewed, with 65% located in the south, 40% immediately west of Warwick and 4 or 20% located within 1 kilometre of a major residential area, Chase Meadow estate
The Council may claim this is due to a need to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development, but it is also a result of the Council's failure to co-operate with adjoining councils, necessary because it is both small in area, and predominantly Green Belt.
It is important to note at this point that Chapter 9 of the 'National Planning Policy Framework', March 2012, makes it clear that the Green Belt, which covers the northern four fifths of the District, does not represent an insuperable barrier to development; indeed the preparation of a new Local Plan provides opportunities 'to review and adjust Green Belt boundaries and also to identify areas for development' (Paragraph 84).
The Council took on board this National guidance in its Green Belt policy, (New Local Plan Preferred Options report, May 2012, WDC, Chapter 16), which allocated substantive residential and employment development on Green Belt land with associated boundary adjustments. The justification for this Preferred Option was set out in the Housing Chapter of the same report, and although Chapter 16 is silent on GTC sites, it seems logical that they would be permissible on the same grounds as housing. Regrettably, and misguidedly, the Council has now changed its approach to the broad location of growth from that set out in the May 2012 report, and which is now the subject of major but separate objections.
Nevertheless, the March 2012 National Policy Framework still applies and should be taken into account by the Council in the identification of suitable traveller sites, as outlined in the next section.
Site Search Process
As things currently stand, in moving to the next stage of this part of the Local Plan process the Council will need to identify a 'preferred' list of suitable sites, not necessarily from the current options.
How should the Council go about this crucial next stage?
Good access to the trunk road network and locations within reasonable travelling time, say 15 minutes, of major urban areas should be the key initial considerations.
As the GTC have high levels of vehicle ownership, the availability of public transport is a subsidiary issue.
A sequential search process, (a well established planning principle), should then be followed, starting with brownfield sites, (which may already have some infrastructure, utility connections etc), including those close to/adjacent to industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only when the previous stages have been exhausted would it be necessary to consider greenfield sites, some of which may be in the current Green Belt and starting with those close to/adjacent to agricultural/industrial/commercial land use areas.
Only as a final stage, and if necessary, would consideration be given to greenfield sites close to or adjacent to small scale residential areas.
There should be no need in this process to consider sites close to or adjacent to large scale residential areas, with all the conflicts and problems this would be likely to generate. Indeed, a search exclusion zone of at least 1 mile should be applied around such areas. The reason for this is the fundamental incompatibility between the GTC and the settled community, due to the nature of the GTC culture, lifestyle and economic activity, previously referred to.
At each stage, sites can be assessed against the relevant national and local policy criteria.
As an example of a robust and rational approach to site assessment reflecting the above principles, I would commend that recently adopted by Lewes District Council, ('Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment 2011 - Lewes District Council'), based on a set of 14 criteria, which had been widely consulted on by both the local settled and traveller communities. Sites were scored against each criterion, and subsequently ranked.
One of the criterion was the proximity to large numbers of residential properties, identified as a negative factor, on the grounds that:
'In order to promote understanding and tolerance between local residents/landowners and Gypsies and Travellers, it is important that any impact on the living conditions for local people are acceptable. The number of residential properties in proximity to sites is therefore a factor'
This is yet another very good reason to reject site GT11 on the grounds of its proximity to the large Chase Meadow estate.
Locations Not Yet Considered
There are a number of locations apparently not yet considered by the Council with potential to provide suitable sites, including:
 Castle Park - an extensive tract of land to the south of the town but with no public access
 Various areas of vacant land north of Warwick town centre in the vicinity of the canal, e.g. sites around Lower Cape
 Open fields adjacent to the river/canal/railway line between Warwick and Leamington
 Areas adjacent to Warwick/Leamington southern urban fringe and industrial estates e.g. Gallows Hill, Heathcote Lane, etc
In conclusion, this objections submission clearly shows the perversity of ever including site GT11 in the present options list, a site which demonstrably fails to meet ANY of the relevant national and local policy criteria. Thus, the Council should give no further consideration to this site.
Whilst the Council's underlying approach to this whole GTC sites issue is also shown to be fundamentally flawed, some constructive proposals are put forward in relation to identification of suitable alternative sites.
I rest my case.

As you are no doubt aware many tax paying house owners within the Chase meadow estate have voiced very strong thoughts of the proposed site directly opposite the estate.
We are so worried and concerned on many front's that I must contact you to voice my views and in certain areas...

Security - You may be aware of a recent blatant burglary of the one stop shop on the estate by travellers. It is only logical to assume that there would be an increase in crime with permanent site, and everyone has a story to tell of the direct crime increase when the horse fair is on. We live within "spitting distance" from the main road which is deeply concerning ourselves and female neighbours within our close as many of the husbands are often away on work. In addition there is also "instant access" by way of a walkway for them to gain direct access and exit from the estate. There is a clear and direct security risk here. Today we are tired of "random callers" walking door to door on the estate as it is today and we don't no9t welcome an increased presence of traveller gardeners, odd job men, window cleaners nor drive tarmakers.

Services - Primary School -The newburgh primary school is full and will become even more so with the pending huge increase in residents from the expansion of the estate. In addition as you imagine we and many other parents will not be wishing to integrate our children with traveller children nor would any teacher's be looking forward to working with them either I'm sure! Can you imagine how ( and in fact if! ) it would be possible to disciple these children and deal effectively with the parents? If the police are very reluctant to deal with issues or even enter estates ( commonly known ) then how would teachers? This would also become a drag on the local police as the police could be visiting the school on a regular basis to deal with discipline issues at the request of the school, purely for safety reasons.
Doctors - To get any appointment you must be physically waiting outside the surgery on the day, or if it's not an emergency you simply can't get an appointment. They are full and everyone on the estate is complaining now about the increase on houses that is pending.

Property Values - Who in their right mind would buy a house so close to a large traveller camp? There's laws to protect consumers in many ways yet you are contemplating a decision that will directly influence a massive spiral in priority prices. Surely common sense in any decision is to ensure that the minimum number of residents are effected? If you housed a site here you would be effecting a very large number of people in the knowledge of a huge and on-going backlash to the council. There's other site's that owners will sell and that's more sensible all round, along with sites that will effect only a small number of residents.

Policing - Need I say more than there will be a large increase in required presence and an obvious and already know increase in crime.

Should our site be chosen we shall be moving as soon as any unfortunate announcement be made for the safety of my young family, and enjoyment of life. Aside from the congestion issues on the estate services to have these people so close to us and the vastly increased security issues would be simply irresponsible of any parent.

This site has good services nearby, road access and would be low cost to develop.

This site meets many of the criteria required by WDC.
There is a Doctors surgery with 0.5 miles and 3 new schools are planned.
Access to the primary road network is good as are pedestrian links to Chase meadow and Warwick. Noise from the A46 could be attenuated and the residential area could be at the Eastern end. There is a bus service passing the site and the problems with vehicle access are not insurmountable.

I object once again to the shortlisting of this site. The site is on a busy main road with no appropriate access. A roundabout would need to be constructed to enable a further junction to be added to this already dangerous (for pedestrians and cyclists) road. Locating a Gypsy site so close to an established residential area will inevitably cause friction and conflict with the established community; it is too close to Chase Meadow. A gypsy site should be in a more rural location, otherwise it doesn't fit with their lifestyle choice. The impact on the Racecourse should not be underestimated, Warwick racecourse brings a lot of money into the town, locating a gypsy site on the edge of it will cause horse owners concern over illness, disease and uncontrolled dogs. I would expect a detrimental impact on the success and viability of the racecourse, leading to an impact on employment. It will also be impossible to control and contain illegal growth of pitches across the whole site once the area is opened up. It will also impact the view of the town of Warwick from the western approach. All in all this site should be graded red, not amber.

Totally unsuitable for traveller and Gipsy Site. Impact on the Racecourse will be substantial. There is concern over Animals/ illness/ disease/ wild dogs and potential lost revenue to the town because of a down turn in Racegoers when Racehorse owners start to boycott the course because of concerns over the travellers site being next door.
It would be impossible to control and contain illegal growth of pitches .
Too close to a densely populated residential area which does not fit in with a traveller/Gipsy way of life.
Remove this site from the reserve list and exclude as an option it immediately.

1. Uncertainty over access to local schools. Only school currently identified is not close by and would require travelling through Warwick which is already congested at school run times and will only become more so as current plans for additional housing are rolled out.
2. Beaumont Meadow is now under development, so Chase Meadow amenities will already be increasingly stretched serving the settled population.
3. We remain concerned that ground saturation is likely regardless of what has been done to manage Gog Brook, particularly in light of the additional development and bearing in mind the fact the current roads remain unadopted because of local authority concerns over the adequacy of current flood measures.
4. Hampton Road is a fast road, busy at peak times, and thus unsuitable for people to access local amenities on foot e.g. if crossing to get to Chase Meadow GP Surgery. No parking available along Hampton Road.
5. Potential for disturbance of private houses along Hampton Road ie top of Chase Meadow and Budbrooke Lodge.
6. Uncertainty about being able to link into current sewage system. Also, Chase Meadow Community Centre is currently without mains gas because of problems linking up, indicating utilities have little spare capacity.
7. Would require loss of Gog Brook Local Wildlife site in an area where wild habitat is already disrupted by dog walkers and toy aeroplane enthusiasts.
8. Site occupants might find the proximity of the race course disruptive on race meeting days with the noise of loud speakers and crowds.
9. Likelihood is that site occupants would be those in a situation where they need to be settled for a period rather than in a traditional traveller lifestyle, and therefore more likely to have to travel to required amenities and to work.
10. Site will be subject to acute noise from the A46 as well as significant noise from the Hampton Road.
11. Site is in a dip and therefore air quality is compromised.

1. Uncertainty over access to local schools. Only school currently identified is not close by and would require travelling through Warwick which is already congested at school run times and will only become more so as current plans for additional housing are rolled out.
2. Beaumont Meadow is now under development, so Chase Meadow amenities will already be increasingly stretched serving the settled population.
3. We remain concerned that ground saturation is likely regardless of what has been done to manage Gog Brook, particularly in light of the additional development and bearing in mind the fact the current roads remain unadopted because of local authority concerns over the adequacy of current flood measures.
4. Hampton Road is a fast road, busy at peak times, and thus unsuitable for people to access local amenities on foot e.g. if crossing to get to Chase Meadow GP Surgery. No parking available along Hampton Road.
5. Potential for disturbance of private houses along Hampton Road ie top of Chase Meadow and Budbrooke Lodge.
6. Uncertainty about being able to link into current sewage system. Also, Chase Meadow Community Centre is currently without mains gas because of problems linking up, indicating utilities have little spare capacity.
7. Would require loss of Gog Brook Local Wildlife site in an area where wild habitat is already disrupted by dog walkers and toy aeroplane enthusiasts.
8. Site occupants might find the proximity of the race course disruptive on race meeting days with the noise of loud speakers and crowds.
9. Likelihood is that site occupants would be those in a situation where they need to be settled for a period rather than in a traditional traveller lifestyle, and therefore more likely to have to travel to required amenities and to work.
10. Site will be subject to acute noise from the A46 as well as significant noise from the Hampton Road.
11. Site is in a dip and therefore air quality is compromised.

This is a good site - well located on a less busy road - nearby services and good pedestrian access.

I object to the proposals to use this site as a gypsy and traveller site. It is not certain that the flood risk to this site has been alleviated, the local infrastructure is still incomplete, with historical issues of section 106 monies being 'redistributed' for works on St Nicholas Park as opposed to its original purpose. The proposals would place additional burden on this incomplete infrastructure. There may also be effects upon the racecourse which brings numerous visitors and income to the town each year. Uncontrolled and unvaccinated animals in such close proximity to the stables may be a source of disease and discourage trainers from attending meetings, with consequential effects upon the racecourse and towns economy. Finally the site would be the first thing many tourists would see when travelling into Warwick.

This is a good AND AVAILABLE site - it should be used to its maximum capacity - close enough to all services and good road access.

This site is close to public amenities with good vehicular access and access to water, sewerage, electricity and communications. Access to both primary and secondary schools is within reach and public transport is accessible. Scope also exists to extend this site northwards towards the A46 with additional vehicular access at the service station. This site is adjacent to an existing industrial unit therefore should not impact on existing residents as much as some other proposed sites. The proximity to warwick racecourse may also provide employment opportunities to the travellers.

1) Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of natural and historic environment and sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site is close to its Racecourse (which brings many tourists to the town) and St. Mary's Land (both of historical importance) and are the largest green space close to the centre of the town. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorses. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy site. The Hampton road is one of the main routes bringing tourists into Warwick if this site was chosen this is the first thing they would see when entering the town.
2) Avoiding areas with a risk of flooding: Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.
3) Promotes peaceful and integrated co existence between site and local community: Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible. This could create anger, hatred and resentment within the local community.
4) Safe access to the road network: The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.
5) Avoiding areas where there is potential for noise and disturbance:
Of all the proposed sites GT11 is the closest to an existing large populated area.
The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46, because the noise echoes. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.
6) Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Local services are already struggling with an ever growing population for example local schools are struggling to cope with the increase in pupil numbers.
7) Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location omitting travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. If we all had 500 sq metres as 'our pitch' maybe we too could live and work from the same location.
If this site gets the go ahead will existing residents be compensated for the knock on impact this site would have on house prices (leaving some in negative equity) and the ability to sell?

Please find our objections to GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Hampton Road
1) Avoiding areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of natural and historic environment and sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area: Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site is close to its Racecourse (which brings many tourists to the town) and St. Mary's Land (both of historical importance) and are the largest green space close to the centre of the town. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorses. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy site. The Hampton road is one of the main routes bringing tourists into Warwick if this site was chosen this is the first thing they would see when entering the town.

2) Avoiding areas with a risk of flooding: Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.

3) Promotes peaceful and integrated co existence between site and local community: Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible. This could create anger, hatred and resentment within the local community.

4) Safe access to the road network: The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.

5) Avoiding areas where there is potential for noise and disturbance:
Of all the proposed sites GT11 is the closest to an existing large populated area.
The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46, because the noise echoes. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.

6) Avoids placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services: Local services are already struggling with an ever growing population for example local schools are struggling to cope with the increase in pupil numbers.

7) Reflects the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location omitting travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. If we all had 500 sq metres as 'our pitch' maybe we too could live and work from the same location.

If this site gets the go ahead will existing residents be compensated for the knock on impact this site would have on house prices (leaving some in negative equity) and the ability to sell?

I have looked at the available information on line before sending this email as a long standing resident of Warwick and would comment as follows.

In principle I understand the need to have temporary and sensibly located sites for gypsies and travellers. However I could not find any information on how these sites will be serviced (eg access, toilets,etc) nor how they will be policed to ensure that the sites should only be used on a temporary basis. Assuming these measures are implemented the selection of sites I am sure are sensible.
As regards so called permanent sites I would have serious reservations given the experience of such sites elsewhere in the south of England. For example how can we control numbers and that the occupants are genuine gypsies/travellers ? With the pressures on local services due to the rapid growth in the UK population and the no of homeless people looking to move out of the overcrowded south east control will be difficult given the experience in certain areas of the south . Apart from pressure on local services a rise in local crime may be one result of overcrowding.
Warwick is one of the loveliest towns in England with a proud history. The many visitors to the town and surrounding areas are surely vital to the local economy and future prosperity of our town. The racecourse and adjacent St Mary's land/ Golf course is a major attraction but seems always to be under pressure from planning applications and I hope my local council continue to resist any new permanent buildings or a permanent gipsy/travellers site. Of course a temporary site is needed for such as the Billy Smarts Circus.

One general comment in relation to the overall plan is that the whole multi layered bureaucratic system for designing, drawing up, approval and presenting of the various local plans for Warwickshire and Warwick District, from Central Government, down to County Council and through to local District Council are such that by the time plans are put out to local residents most of the proposals seem to be ' fait accompli' with limited times for consultation. From people I've spoken to there seems to be a general dissatisfaction with the whole process and the lack of information as to what actions our local MP and other Warwickshire MP's are taking at the seat of Government to overturn damaging central
proposals such as HS2 and large population increases under the guise of the local 15 yr plan, despite the obvious overpressure on local infrastructure and services eg traffic, schools, hospitals and policing.

I appreciate that our local councillors are doing their best to look after local services for their residents and to keep Warwick as an accessible historic town enjoyed by both local people and visitors.

On behalf of Warwick Racecourse I wish to express my deepest frustration and concern that the District Council have seen fit to retain GT11 Land at Budbrooke Lodge, albeit as a possible "Alternative" Gypsy and Traveller Site Option. However, it would indicate that the Budbrooke Lodge option is essentially still "in play".

Without reviewing all the concerns raised in my previous feedback the aspect of greatest concern is the British Horseracing Authority's (horseracing's governing body) representation that they would unlikely grant Warwick Racecourse a license to continue to race by virtue of the proximity of the Traveller site and the associated risks. The risks, should they manifest themselves could have very serious repercussions for the industry countrywide and therefore understandably do not wish to put their Industry, or one of their Racecourses in that position.

In essence they would have no choice but to not issue a license and the Racecourse business would immediately cease. The local repercussions of which would be significant on employment, entertainment, retail, tourism - the list goes on.

As a business that has been so much a part of Warwick's history over the last three centuries and continues to bring business to the local community it would be a travesty risking so much for want of engaging common sense and selecting a more appropriate alternative site for Traveller pitches.

Please see below my objections to the proposed site GT11 - Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Hampton Road

1) Warwick is an historic town and the proposed site close to the Racecourse, St. Mary's Land and Green belt, would negatively impact Tourism on which many local businesses rely. The site on Hampton Road is very close to the Racecourse stable. There is a potential risk of disease being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorse. There is also lot of wildlife in this area and this would be adversely affected if this site were to become a Gypsy and Traveller site.
2) Part of the proposed Hampton Road site (GT11) sits within the flood plain, which is in conflict to the "Planning Policy for Traveller sites". If hard standings were placed in this area it would exacerbate the problems in the flood plain.
3) Judging by the depth of negative feeling regarding the proposed site on Hampton Road "peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community" appears to be impossible.
4) The noise from the A46 is very loud, especially where the vehicles pass under the bridge where the Hampton Road crosses the A46. The site on the Hampton Road is very close to this bridge so there is a high potential for noise on this site.
5) The junction of Purser Drive on to Hampton Road is very busy and will only become busier as the building on Chase Meadow estate increases. Traffic travels too fast down this stretch of road and to have an entrance to a Gypsy and Traveller site close by on the opposite side of the road could be dangerous especially with caravans turning in and out of the entrance.

see attached

see attached

RESPONSE TO GYPSY AND TRAVELLER PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION ON BEHALF OF THE KING HENRY VIII ENDOWED TRUST
Please find below representations on behalf of the King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (hereafter referred to as the Trust) in relation to Site GT11: Land at Budbrooke Lodge, Racecourse and Hampton Road.
The Trust objects to the classification of site GT11 as an amber site. The site should be re-classified as a red site that is not suitable for development as a gypsy and traveller site. The reasons why the site is not considered to be suitable for such development are set out under the relevant headings below.
OVERALL APPROACH TO SITE SELECTION AND GENERAL COMMENTS
The site assessment document sets out those sites that 'can be removed without further consideration'. It is unclear why some of these sites were included in the Issues and Options consultation if now the District Council has identified key reasons why they are not suitable for the location of a gypsy and traveller site. Furthermore, we consider that there is also inconsistency in how sites perform against certain criterion, e.g. noise impact. For example, Land at Budbrooke Lodge lies adjacent to the A46 and therefore noise impact is a key factor which we consider cannot be adequately mitigated and, not withstanding performance against other criterion, should have ruled the site out at the Issues and Options stage as unsuitable as a gypsy and traveller site. The issue is explored in more detail below.
The consultation document should clarify the difference between the capacity (potential number of pitches) and recommended maximum number of pitches for each site. It is our understanding that this relates to government advice that new gypsy and traveller sites should be between 5-15 pitches with a preference for the number of pitches being at the lower end of this range. This point should be clarified by the District Council, otherwise it could be viewed that the potential number of pitches for a site corresponds with WDC's longer term aim for the number of pitches which can be accommodated on a site.

NOISE IMPACT
The site is located adjacent to the A46 dual carriageway. There is potential health issues (e.g. noise) associated with locating a gypsy site so close to a busy dual carriageway. In particular, regard has to be had to the nature of gypsy and traveller accommodation. Double and triple glazing mitigation measures that could be appropriate to traditional houses will not be appropriate to caravans/mobile homes. Furthermore the very nature of materials used in the construction of caravans/ mobile homes, visa-vis traditional housing, means that the noise insulation properties are poor with no cost effective opportunities for improvement.
The National Planning Policy for traveller sites (CLG, March 2012) provides guidance to local planning authorities (LPAs) on the content of policies relating to the location of gypsy and traveller sites. At paragraph 11e, it states that policies should: "provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there...". Whilst 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites' Good Practice Guide, CLG, 2008 was published prior to the National Traveller Policy on Traveller sites, key elements of it are still relevant. Paragraph 3.18 of this guidance states that when considering sites adjacent to main roads, flyovers and railway lines, careful regard must be given to the health and safety of children and others who will live on the site and the greater noise transference through the walls of trailers and caravans than through the walls of conventional housing.
The issue of noise is also identified in the WDC Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, Preferred Options document as one of the key criteria that is being applied to sites in the selection process. At paragraph 6.1, point 4 sets out the criteria of "Avoiding areas where there is potential for noise and other disturbance". It is noted that several sites that WDC does not consider suitable for gypsy and traveller development, identified as red sites (GT07, GT17, GT18, GT20 and GTalt13) include noise as one of the reasons why they are unsuitable. For instance, in relation to GT17 (Land on the southbound carriageway of the A46), the site assessment states that "noise from the A46 would be intolerable for residential use, particularly caravans which are less well insulated than conventional housing".
Warwick District Council's Planning Application Validation Checklist includes a requirement for a Noise Impact Assessment for applications on sites adjacent to noise producing sites, e.g. residential sites adjacent to a railway line, road, airport or industrial use. Standard mitigation that may be appropriate for traditional residential properties is unlikely to be appropriate for caravans/mobile homes.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance identifies that noise needs to be considered when new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment (Paragraph 001, Reference ID 30-001-20140306). It goes on to state that "Local planning authorities' plan-making and decision taking should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider ...whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved." Additionally, the Noise Policy Statement for England (DEFRA, March 2010) states in relation to health and quality of life at paragraph 2.14 that there is emerging evidence that long term exposure to some types of transport noise can cause an increased risk of direct health effects.

It is therefore concluded that noise and potentially air quality issues associated with the proximity of this site to the A46 dual carriageway make it unsuitable for a gypsy site due to amenity and health issues for the residents. These issues cannot be mitigated for caravans/ mobile homes in the way that they could be for traditional housing in this location.
FLOOD ISSUES
It is recognised that WDC has reduced the site area in the Preferred Options consultation so that the site is now located outside the flood plain. However there are concerns about the nature of development proposed so close to the floodplain. Caravans and mobile homes are more vulnerable to flooding than traditional houses and therefore consideration should be given to the suitability of the site for this type of development. Whilst it may be appropriate to implement flood mitigation measures for traditional housing, this is unlikely to be financially viable for development of a gypsy and traveller site.
The National Planning Policy for traveller sites (CLG, March 2012) provides guidance to local planning authorities (LPAs) on the content of policies relating to the location of gypsy and traveller sites. At paragraph 11g, it states that policies should ensure that they "do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans." This recognises the particular vulnerability of caravans to flooding.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance identifies caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use as being highly vulnerable in the flood risk vulnerability classification.
QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT
The site is considered to have development potential, but the quality of any development at this location needs to be at a very high standard to ensure that it does not negatively impact on both the character of the local area and the setting of Warwick, plus the amenity of local residents, visitors and tourists. It is our considered view that the necessary standards of development would not be secured with a gypsy and traveller site.
LANDSCAPE/SCREENING
Whilst the site is screened to a degree, the site is important to the structure and character of Warwick, therefore, depending on the nature and quality of the development proposed, there could be harm to the landscape.
According to the Submission Draft Warwick District Local Plan, which has been approved by Council for public consultation and is to be used for development control purposes until formally adopted, "Camping and caravan sites can provide useful low cost accommodation, however they can seriously harm the landscape if they are insensitively located" (paragraph 3.133). Whilst it is recognised that the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites are not 'caravan sites', the physical characterises are clearly very similar and for this reason this extract from the emerging Local Plan is relevant in the consideration of the suitability of land at Budbrooke Lodge being identified as a potential Gypsy and Traveller site.

Whilst the site may not be immediately visible from Hampton Road, it is visible from other public areas, including the golf course, public rights of way around the racecourse and the racecourse itself. As the proposed site is adjacent to the starting line at the racecourse, it is likely that it would be visible when events are televised. Once more this raises the question about the suitability of development of this nature in such a sensitive location where visual impact is particularly important.
LOCATION ADJACENT TO WARWICK RACECOURSE
The racecourse is a key economic driver in the local economy and a key recreational resource for the town. It is essential therefore to ensure that the quality and nature of any development in the immediate vicinity of the racecourse does not negatively impact on the racecourse and in turn the local economy. It is our considered view that a gypsy and traveller site will not achieve an appropriate standard of design and is incompatible with the racecourse as an adjacent land use.
Although the site sits outside of the boundaries of Warwick Racecourse/St Mary's Lands as defined on the Policy Map in the Submission Draft Warwick District Local Plan and designated under Draft Policy CT7, it clearly sits in very close proximity. In the supporting text to the policy the Draft Plan states (paragraphs 3.140 to 3.141):
"Warwick Racecourse and St Mary's Lands provides an important recreation, leisure and entertainment facility. Given the role of the Racecourse and St Mary's Lands in the local economy and community, the ongoing vitality and viability of this facility is supported... This area is important in the setting of Warwick and provides open spaces close to the Town Centre which is well used and appreciated by those who live and work in the Town... In this context, any development will need to be sensitive to the heritage assets, the setting of the town, the ongoing enjoyment of the area for recreational purposes and the need to maintain local habitats and biodiversity."
In addition to the potential impact of in compatible/low quality development in this location on the local economy, there are concerns about animals being kept in close proximity to the racecourse, with a potential risk of diseases being transferred from non-vaccinated animals to thoroughbred racehorses. This could in turn lead to licence issues for the Racecourse and as a result the long term viability of this important tourist asset.
WILDLIFE SITES
The site is in close proximity to the Gog Brook which forms part of the River Avon Local Wildlife Site. There is therefore a need to ensure that development of the site would not harm any priority habitats or species that may be present in the vicinity of the LWS.
COMPULSORY PURCHASE
The site is not considered to be 'developable' in the definition set out in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, CLG, March 2012 (paragraph 9c) as the site is not available now and is principally in the ownership of the King Henry VIII Endowed Trust. WDC would need to use compulsory purchase powers in order for the site to be available. There would therefore be
significant financial and time considerations for WDC if the site was to be taken forward.
The site is not available or deliverable without compulsory purchase.
The site is also in close proximity to an existing residential property, Budbrooke Lodge. At
paragraph 6.2 of the WDC Sites for Gypsies and Travellers Preferred Options document,
point 11 notes proximity to other residential properties as a criterion to be considered in the
suitability of sites. It is not evident that in this case the amenity of residents at Budbrooke
Farm or those in the wider area have been appropriately considered.
ACCESS
The issue of access identified in the WDC Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, Preferred
Options document as one of the key criteria that is being applied to sites in the selection
process. In section 6.1, point 3 identifies 'safe access to the road network and provision for
parking, turning and servicing on site' as one of the criteria.
County Highways have expressed concerns about access to the site, concerns which they
believe can best be addressed if access was secured via Budbrooke Lodge. As Budbrooke
Lodge is in the ownership of the King Henry VIII Endowed Trust and it is not available, there
clearly remain concerns over the suitability of the site based on access considerations.
CONCLUSIONS
Site GT11 should be re-classified as a red site that is not suitable for gypsy and traveller site
development. Noise from the adjacent A46 makes the site unsuitable for those living in
caravans and mobile homes, as traditional mitigation measures (such as double and triple
glazing) that can be applied to conventional house types will not be appropriate. Noise could
have a serious impact on the health and well-being of new residents. In addition to concern
about noise, there are a number of other concerns about the site which make it unsuitable for
gypsy and traveller site development, namely the proximity of the site to Warwick
Racecourse, issues around accessing the site safely and the fact that the site would need to
be subject to compulsory purchase in order for it to be available and developable.

see attached

see attached