1 Introduction

Local Plan Focused Consultation December 2014 including Stratford Road Gypsy & Traveller permanent site at Stratford Road.
from Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council

Part A - Personal Details

Sean Deely, Chairman, Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council.

3. Notification of subsequent stages of the Plan.
Please specify whether you wish to be notified of any of the following

The submission of the Plan for independent examination Yes

Publication of the recommendations of any person appointed to carry out an independent examination of the Plan Yes

The adoption of the Plan Yes




Part B - Your representations
Representation 1
4. Which part of the plan does this representation relate?
Focused changes
Paragraph number REFERENCE 1.
POLICY number DS9
POLICIES MAP 2(Reference 5, 11 & 12)
5. Do you consider the Plan is:
5.1 Legally compliant? Yes
5.2 Complies with Duty to Co-operate Yes
5.3 Sound? Yes
MODIFICATION Delete 8ha employment land north of Gallows Hill & 3.7ha at Opus 40 & add 11.7 ha employment land at Stratford Road Warwick.
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council SUPPORT this amendment
Because a) It is a better employment location than Europa Way because it is immediately adjacent to the M40 junction 15. This would minimise any resultant traffic on Warwick Town Centre. The Europa Way employment location would have added significant additional employment related traffic on both Warwick and Leamington as well Europa Way itself and Greys Mallory roundabout and the links to junctions 14 and 15 on the M40. The modification is betteras it reduces traffic congestion, air quality in the towns, traffic noise to the new residential areas and global CO2 emissions.
b) It releases land on the 2 sites for residential use and in the case of Opus 40 increases the amount of brownfield utilised in the Urban area.
c) It improves compliance with Strategic Policies DS3 (b), (c), (e) & DS4 (a) & (c).


Part B - Your representations
Representation 2
4. Which part of the plan does this representation relate?
Focused changes
Paragraph number REFERENCE 2 & 3.
POLICY numbers DS11 & DS14 SITE : H01
POLICIES MAP 2(Reference 6 & 7)
5. Do you consider the Plan is:
5.1 Legally compliant? Not certain
5.2 Complies with Duty to Co-operate No
5.3 Sound? No
6. If you answered no to question 5.3 , do you consider the Plan unsound because it is not
Positively prepared No
Justified No
Effective No
Consistent with National Policy No
MODIFICATION Amend the following in relation to land west of Europa Way to increase number of dwellings from 1,190 to 1,300 and add Infrastructure requirements and other uses : add "Community Stadium and associated uses".
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council DO NOT SUPPORT this amendment.
Because a) The number of dwellings stated of 1,300 does not reflect the capacity of the site released. If 8ha of employment land is released and a community stadium is located on 3 ha then 5 ha is available for additional housing. The local retail, medical and community facilities, including 4 football pitches and a running track that is available for community use, are already allocated at the southern end of the recently approved 735 dwelling proposal. Hence working on 35 dw/ha, 5 x 35 = 175 to add to the declared 1,190. Hence 1,365 dwellings could be expected.
b) 35 dwellings per ha is the density accepted for market homes. However, 40% of the site should be affordable homes. To be affordable a density of 50 dwellings / ha can provide a perfectly spacious layout for affordable homes particularly where one and two bed dwellings provide a reasonable part of the mix, as is shown in countless examples around the country. The affordable and market homes should be mixed, giving a better distribution of open space.
If 1,190 homes are built at 35 dw/ha As the current frat of the Local Plan, they will occupy 34 ha. If 5ha. are added to that, then 39ha are available. If market homes are built at 35 dw/ha and affordable homes at 50 dw/ha, then the capacity of the whole site west of Europa Way is 1,550 dwellings. (60% of 1,550 = 930, at 35dw/ha requires 26.572ha and 40% of 1,550 = 620, at 50 dw/ha requires 12.4 ha. Total land requirement = 39 ha.)
c) Proposed "Community Stadium and associated uses". This is described elsewhere as a 5,000 seat stadium with conference and other facilities to make it financially viable together with associated parking and other external facilities. Bishop's Tachbrook parish council OBJECT to the location of such a development as inappropriate for this area west of Europa Way which is designated for over 1500 houses. It is out of scale with new garden suburb residential development and the massing of a stadium of this nature will be an unacceptable intrusion. A stadium designed for and occupied by a professional football club conflicts with
* the interests of families growing up in this new residential area and
* the traffic implications when match days coincide with normal peak times would be totally unacceptable on Gallows Hill and the roads around Warwick, Leamington and down to the Motorway which are already overloaded before any new housing is built
* light and noise pollution from evening and night time games that would be disruptive to the residents;
* problems of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the housing complex as crowds seek to get to the stadium.

Current trends are to move stadia away from residential areas, not to put them close to new garden town suburbs.
The proposal appears to be uncosted and the costs will be high in
* land costs (even if county land, it must be accounted for at alternative use value that could go to the County if released for housing) and
* construction costs for the stadium, pitch(es) facilities (Stadium ground not normally used for training so additional training area is likely to be necessary), parking
* running costs that are unlikely to be met by gate income even if there are conference and other facilities attached.
These decisions should not be made without a well costed business plan without which the club could get into serious financial difficulties and the District Council would not be able to bail them out. The Ricoh Arena in Coventry is an example of what can happen.
d) If the stadium is moved to this location, it will take land that could be used for housing, moving the housing further out towards the valued landscape of the Tachbrook Valley. The net car travel miles from housing and pitch activity will increase. This does not comply with the NPPF either for protection of the natural environment, protection of best & most versatile agricultural land and unnecessary increased car miles, so it is not a sustainable development.
e) If the land is used for housing instead, then the capacity of the land west of Europa Way increases to 1,670. (60% of 1,670 = 1002, at 35dw/ha requires 28.64ha and 40% of 1,670 = 668, at 50 dw/ha requires 13.36 ha. Total land requirement = 42 ha.)
The Opus site gives a further 100 dwellings. That is a total of 1,770 dwellings compared with the existing allocation in DS11 of 1,190 which is an additional 580 dwellings. Thus, any further encroachment into the Tach Brook Valley on either Grove Farm or Lower Heathcote Farm is not justified to meet the objectively assessed housing need.
f) The proposal does not comply with strategic policies DS3 (a), (d), (e), and policies Be1 (a), (f), (m), Be2 (d), (h), Be3 & TR2

Part B - Your representations
Representation 3
4. Which part of the plan does this representation relate?
Focused changes
Paragraph number REFERENCE 4.
POLICY number DS11
POLICIES MAP 2(Reference 9 & 10)
5. Do you consider the Plan is:
5.1 Legally compliant? Yes
5.2 Complies with Duty to Co-operate Yes
5.3 Sound? Yes
MODIFICATION Add new site under urban brownfield H39 - Opus 40, Birmingham Road, Warwick
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council SUPPORT this amendment for the reasons set out in our response to Reference 1 paragraph (b) and Reference 2 & 3 paragraph (e).
11 December 2014

Part B - Your representations
Representation on Stratford Road Gypsy & Traveller Permanent site.
4. Which part of the plan does this representation relate?
Focused changes
Stratford Road Gypsy & Traveller Permanent site.
5. Do you consider the Plan is:
5.1 Legally compliant? Yes
5.2 Complies with Duty to Co-operate Yes
5.3 Sound? Yes
Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council SUPPORTS the proposed site off Stratford Road, for the use of permanent pitches for the Gypsy and Traveller community. In summary this site offers a larger number of positive characteristics than any other site proposed during the previous rounds of consultation.
Specifically this site can better meet the health needs of residents, with a number of GP surgeries and dental practices within walking distance: Warwick Hospital is only a short drive away. Educational needs are well served by a number of schools also within close walking distance.
Access to and from the highway for articulated vehicles is made safe with excellent sight lines along the Stratford road in both directions. Also this site provides excellent access to major roads, the M40 and A46 which is important for periods of touring.
This site is lower lying and the proposal would have minimal impact on the local landscape and create negligible visual impact, particularly with the proposed landscaping. Flooding risk has been assessed as low and we note that the ecology report is awaited.
Finally the site is well served by public transport and there are a range of amenities available in nearby Warwick.

I have found your contact details on the CMRA website, and understand that you are the best person to contact for objections to the newly proposed gypsy site on the Stratford Road. I am absolutely horrified to learn that this area which has not been detailed before in any of the plans, is now in the remaining three in this area to house a gypsy site permanently. My family have lived on Chase Meadow for 7 years, and are about to move to one of the new Bellway homes opposite the lake, at great expense. We are not alone in being absolutely horrified at the thought of the gypsies being in such close proximity to our estate.

This is a beautiful estate, made up of hard working families with young children, who pay a premium to live here. We certainly don't want to have a permanent gypsy site on our doorstep who will have a negative impact on our community, businesses, and facilities. I grew up in an area of Surrey with a site, and there were huge issues relating to crime and anti social behaviour. Unfortunately as much as the ideal is to integrate these people into the community, and recognise their rights to a standard of living, the sad fact is that they don't want to integrate with the rest of society. You only have to watch the Channel 4 programmes to recognise this.

The Europa Way and Harbury Lane sites would surely be better alternatives as they are not near a well established community such as Chase Meadow, so there would be less detrimental effects to house prices, crime, and quality of life.

I would like my name and my husband's name to be added to the list of the potential objectors to this site. We feel that it should be no where near Chase Meadow.

I am disgusted to hear the news of the new proposed gypsy and traveller site on the Stratford rd, Warwick. It was never mentioned or on any documentation of the original consultation list of all sites in the area to be assessed. Why we're local residents and businesses not informed about this? Obviously the concerns put forward to WDC from the public and the CMRA at the meetings previously have not been taken into consideration!!! What has happened to the other proposed sites? This site is even closer to home than the previous sites proposed! We don't need this on our doorstep or do we want it!
As previous meetings went - what does this mean?
Schooling?
Doctors?
Traffic?
House prices?
I could go on and on but we are not listened to as locals! It does seem to be the postcode in which you live in that matters the most to WDC!!!
I am opposing to this new proposed site.

I would like to register my displeasure at the idea of a permanent traveller site being located on the Stratford Road, Warwick.

Enough trouble, noise and inconvenience was caused when they set up home on Chase meadow last year on two separate occasions, and this was only temporary.

Aside from the obvious and dramatic drop in house prices, residents should not have to put up with all of the associated problems that are attached to certain elements of this community.

Despite what some may say, the facilities are inadequate for the area currently, without adding in all these extra people who will no doubt take priority in places like the GP surgery and irk the locals no end.

If you as a council are obliged to site this camp somewhere, then surely the needs and wishes of the permanent tax paying community should take precedence over a group of people who possibly do not care where they live?

The site on Europa way should be the first choice in my opinion, especially as the land in Harbury lane is unlikely to become available for several years.

I understand that you are the senior planner for Warwick DC.
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed site, suddenly included at the last minute, at Stratford Road.
The schools, doctors surgery and other facilities are fully stretched with all the other building work going on at Chase Meadow, without adding this site.
I am not sure how many "pitches" will be made available, but if you think it will be restricted to 15 or less then all I can say is that you do not understand the way the travelling community works.

It was with great regret and sorrow, that I learned that one of the proposed traveller sites, could be potentially sited, just down the road from our house, on Stratford Rd, Warwick.

Living on one of the main principal roads into the County Town of Warwickshire, is not only something that my Wife and I enjoy, but are both very proud of. Of course before moving in, we were always aware that there would be pros and cons, as to living on such a busy road, even though we are very pleased with the recent upgrade to the highway network system, at Longbridge island.

Alas, sometimes there are incidents on the M40, which cause traffic to be diverted along Stratford Rd and this can make life pretty difficult.

Its great to see visitors coming to our Town and we are always pleased for the local economy, when it benefits from such events at Warwick Castle, the Racecourse, The Folk Festival, The Thai weekend, marathons, etc etc.

Even without special events, Warwick enjoys great visitor attraction, particularly on Weekends, Bank Holidays and obviously the Summer months. Stratford Rd does not need any more traffic, especially convoys of travellers, trailers and associated vehicles, which they use to ply their bogus trades, on the elderly and vulnerable of the Local Community.

Travellers have illegally gained site to a field down by Chase Meadow, on quite a few occasions, over the last several years. We all witnessed the mess that they left last time. We had two very expensive garden pots and trees, stolen from the front of our house one night, when the travellers were in Town, but of course, we could not prove anything.

We also had a WPC knock the front door one day, asking if we knew anything about a tradesman, working at a Neighbours of ours, who had equipment stolen from his van, which was parked on his Customers drive. Again, we all knew who the likely candidates were, but could prove nothing.

On another occasion, we were woken at 2.00a.m, by children from the travelling community, riding bicycles up and down Stratford Rd.

There can be and never will be, harmony and interaction between the two Communities, as genetically, Travellers will use and abuse and move on and contribute very little. Its their make up, their way, its how they have been bought up and programmed.

I realise that the Local Authority is now duty bound in law, to make provision for the travelling community and I really sympathise for those, who have to make such decisions, that will impact on peoples life's and properties. It strikes me as plain common sense, that these sites should be hidden away as best as possible and away from near by Communities.

I'm sure I speak for many Pub Landlords, Restaurant owners and Shopkeepers, when I say that they would not welcome traveller custom either.

Some of the cons of living on Stratford Rd at the moment are, the disgusting smells and odours that we experience from the local Sewage Treatment works down the road and I've also noticed a considerable increase of air traffic, which appears to be flying lower and obviously louder, since the new runway at Birmingham Airport was completed.

If you weigh up all of the above evidence, I'm sure you will conclude, that we already shoulder our share of inconvenience and that common sense and fairness, should direct you to opting for another venue then that of Stratford Rd.

I have recently purchased a property on the Chase Meadow development and moved in in May this year.

As I was already a Warwick resident I was well aware of the necessity to have permanent sites for the travelling community and the 20 strong shortlist, which was then reduced to five. I did my due diligence prior to purchasing my house as this would have influenced my decision to purchase should any of the shortlisted sites have impacted where I chose to live and potentially my property value. On finding none of these sites would directly affect my situation I proceeded with the purchase.

I have today become aware that the 5 shortlisted sites is now 3, and a completely new site, virtually overlooking my house is within those 3 sites. I find this incredible given that the initial consultations and such were done over a year ago and this process has been ongoing in public for well over a year. Then at the last minute this site has been added without ever being included in that process, with what seems a degree of stealth. I normally have little sympathy for NIMBYism, but cannot help but feel this is grossly unfair on myself and other recent Beaumont/Chase Meadow purchases and had the process been done with clarity and openly we would have had chance to withdraw from our purchases should we have wished. As it is, we were not given that opportunity and have almost been misled by the council process of identifying traveller sites.

I wish to advise that I will be seeking legal advice immediately as I believe this process to have been incredibly unfair and really cannot believe it is legal to be brutally honest. This could have severe financial implications for many people and fair opportunity has not been afforded by the council consultation process in regard to this particular site, and it almost seems to me that it has been done with a degree of secrecy.

Had such a similar thing happened in the private sector, I am sure you, as local councillors and MP's would be championing the cause of local residents/voters as it is grossly unfair?

I am writing to express my objections to the addition of Stratford Road, Warwick as a further site for consideration in respect of the provision for Gipsy and Traveller sites within the Warwick area.

Several areas around Warwick have already undergone significant development over the past decade, one such example being the Chase Meadow estate which has already placed a burden on the local infrastructure and amenities. Current and future development will place an even greater burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities; this would only be exacerbated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity. For example, having applied to Newburgh School this year ourselves we know how over-subscribed this educational establishment is, with families living closer than proposed 'Site B' unable to get a place for their child.

Further to this the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites will have a huge negative impact on the town of Warwick, especially tourism and the many local businesses that rely upon this. You only have to look at the example set by many shop / restaurant owners who close early when there is an influx of Gypsies and Travellers for the Bank Holiday race meeting.

Moreover, I am left feeling rather frustrated that an additional site has been added to the proposed list of sites at this late stage, especially once the original list had been narrowed to five sites - I am sure that I am not the only resident of Chase Meadow feeling that this has attempted to be passed 'under the radar' to the benefit of numerous parties.

I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are continued to be considered seriously during this process and that common sense prevails and that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families.

I was sorry to learn yesterday that an area very close to my house is being considered for a permanent gypsy/traveller settlement. I have read the previous documentation available from the council about the settlements and the settlement on Stratford Road was not short-listed. I have also been on your website today and there is no information available about the site. I wonder why as residents that are obviously going to be hugely affected by the site (and pay council tax) that we have not been given any information about this. In fact, the local residents association was forced to hand out flyers to tell residents when this clearly is not their job.

I have the following concerns about the site: Chase Meadow is currently a safe and prosperous little community in Warwick. A traveller site across the road will make the area far more unsafe which will be of detriment to the local businesses that are currently flourishing. Also, house prices on the estate will plummet which will discourage the investment being shown in the area currently thus having an impact on local jobs.

I understand that the council has to find sites for travellers and you have to respect their way of life. However, when travellers illegally parked on Tapping Way (visible from my house) in April the travller community made it very clear that they did not respect the estate or the lifestyles of the people that (legally) lived there. As a resident I had to put up with the following aspects of anti-social behaviour:
1. Parking caravans in an area not designated for caravans in a street with other residents.
2. Parking caravans on the pavement stopping pedestrians having a safe place to walk.
3. Parking caravans on the road obstructing traffic and making it difficult for people to park at their own homes.
4. Drinking and making noise late at night (after midnight on Saturday).
5. Groups of men hanging around the road late at night making aggressive gestures to residents of Chase Meadow.
6. Extensive littering of the road which was a health hazard.

At the time myself and the other residents of this road were afraid to go out of our own homes. Children living on the road were forced to stay inside unable to enjoy the holidays as the road was unsafe. The gypsies also parked near Aylesbury school and I am concerned about the safety of schoolchildren when the site is constructed.

My husband and I spent our life savings last year after living in an unsafe area of Birmingham as we wanted to live in a safe community and raise a family. I feel that we have been duped into buying into this area as there was no available information about the site when we moved in (December 2013). If this plan goes ahead then we want to put up flyers at the 3 developments near us to warn off potential buyers so that they are not fooled as we have been.

I would like to make a formal complaint about the site if it goes ahead and I was wondering what financial compensation we can be expected to receive as we are likely to lose tens of thousands of pounds on our property.

I am sorry for the long email but I thought it only proper that the council is fully aware of the feeling of the local residents towards this plan.

It has recently been bought to my attention the new proposals to have a gypsy and traveller site built on Stratford Road, Warwick.
Being a resident of Chase Meadow I feel very strongly on this matter and feel it would have a negative impact on the estate as a whole.
I have a child that attends Aylesford school and sixth form college, and would not feel happy with him walking to school without a chaperone if this plan was to go ahead.
I appreciate that everybody is entitled to live somewhere, but surely as residents we have a right to live peacefully and without worry, when we leave for work at all hours of the day/night.
If this plan goes ahead I will seriously have to consider moving home and taking my child to a different school.

> Along with other residents, I have been closely monitoring the situation regarding the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites around Warwickshire, and am fully aware of the 20 originally proposed sites, and the shortlisted five. This was completed with due consultation with local residents and businesses.
>
> I am therefore more than aware that, of the final three sites chosen, the third site Stratford Road was never on the original consultation list, or the shortlist of sites that were subsequently assessed. So this, I assume, has taken place without any communication to local residents or businesses?
>
> Please register and acknowledge my complaint regarding this action. Further, I would like to understand why this has occurred and why this is considered to be a reasonable course of action?
>
> Please also register and acknowledge my objection to the proposed site.

I understand you are the best contact to make an objection to the planned gypsy site at chase meadow near the Severn Trent land.

I am strongly objecting to this land being a permanent gypsy site. This site would mean a permanent gypsy site right next to a school - aylesford and Newburgh. When gypsies temporarily stayed in caravans on chase meadow last year, we had break-ins all across the estate, with three of my neighbours in my close having their houses broken in to. I have major concerns that this would happen again across the housing estate and at the school if the gypsy site was approved.

The house prices at chase meadow would also fall if this gypsy site is approved which is another concern.

Can you advise on how I can formalise an objection and the next steps in the process.

I would like to know when the consultation period for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation for Stratford Road, Warwick will open. I would like to state that this has come as a great shock to everyone in the local area, this site was not even originally planned as a proposed site and yet has jumped to an approved site with no public consultation.

The approval of this site is going to have a huge detrimental effect on the local area and is going to cause a lot of people to lose huge amounts of money, myself included. I have recently purchased a property with my partner at Chase Meadows, and we are disgusted with how this has been handled. We have never been notified that this was an option and we will now be set to lose thousands due to the gypsy site being built in close proximity to our property. It is a known fact that crime rate increases in these areas and I am sure this will have a detrimental effect on our house price, and both house and vehicle insurance policies.

There is also the issue with over subscription to local surgeries and primary school's, in the proposed document the traveller's are expected to use the facilities within our well established estates that are priced above the national average. I would like to know why it is expected that someone who pays a significant amount of money to live in an area is expected to share facilities with somebody is contributing nothing to the community and live their for free.

What options do we have as a community to oppose this plan and how do we go about it, as I am sure that Warwick District Council are not going to be prepared to foot the bill for my losses on my house.

I wish to register my objection to the above proposal and I , and I suspect many others, would like to know how this proposal has reached this approved status without ever being on the original consultation list of all sites in the area or on the short list of sites to be assessed. How can you possibly justify forcing this proposal onto the residents of chase Meadow without due consultation similar to consultation of other sites which I understand has been going on for years.
As I have no faith whatsoever in Local Government I do not expect a proper response to this communication perhaps nothing , perhaps a bland holding response but who knows???
This site has been chosen in my view because Warwick DC want to get rid of this land and cover your ridiculous obligations to the gypsy and traveller community in one transaction.

Oh well that is my view to be ignored by Local Government again!!!

I object to the proposed gypsie and traveller site off the Stratford Road on the following basis:

1. The consultation process is flawed as the Stratford Road site was selected as a preferred site without being properly considered or previously consulted on.

2. Some members of the council were involved in making related planning decisions, such as the decision not to use the proposed land in Barford as a gypsie and traveller site. In my opinion they should have been excluded from the decision making process and entered themselves onto the council's record of interests. Failure to do so in my opinion is a clear breach of the council's code of conduct and a clear breach of process. In my opinion, there has clearly been a conflict of interest. If the Barford site had been accepted then the Stratford Road would not have been considered.

3. The Stratford Road site has inadequate access as defined by the relevant requirements for gypsie and traveller sites.

4. The site is unsuitable due to its proximity to the sewage works.

5. A council paper of 2009 assessed the site (previously called site B) and declared there were significant constraints and issues to overcome to even use the site for business use. These issues have not been addressed. In particular, the council noted the potential serious damage to the unique Avon riverine.

6. The site is at risk of flood and should be excluded.

7. The local GP surgery is already over subscribed and has objected - there are inadequate local facilities.

8. Proximity to the M40 creates a health hazard to the potential gypsie and traveller residents.

9. There would be a serious negative impact on the local economy as businesses on nearby business parks have objected and the owners of Tournament Fields have clarified that there will be a major and detrimental affect on their ability to attract business tenants.

10. Having a traveller and gypsie site on the main road into Warwick could damage the image of and visitor numbers to Warwick.

11. There would not be good cohesion with the local established community who clearly and strongly object to the proposals for a traveller site on the Stratford Road.

12. There is clear bias from Councillors, most of whom live north of Warwick, who conveniently have not found a single suitable piece of land near where they live and have instead looked to foist all of the traveller and gypsie sites onto the residents of south Warwick. This in my view is a gross example of abuse of position and is highlighted by the proposed Stratford Road site which is clearly so unsuitable and put forward as a preferred site with totally inadequate reasoning to do so.

13. The council has failed to consult properly with local residents by failing to offer discussions and meetings at times that the majority can make.

14. The council should not ignore the will of such a high number of residents.

15. The council has failed to show why the Stratford Road site is more suitable than the other options, such as the Barford site. This is highly relevant if the decision is genuinely to be objective.

I wish to object to the site that is proposed for the Permanent Gypsy & Traveller site
I am a resident of Chase Meadow, Warwick, CV34 6NT and have lived here for 7 years.

As a local resident, I often walk along that road past Longbridge Manor and cross the pedestrian bridge over the M40.
Access is difficult and the bend in the road makes crossing dangerous.
I would not consider it a safe place for children to be. In addition, the proximity to the sewage works is not ideal.

The areas of concern are : 1) Access 2) Quality of the Environment 3) Flood Risk

And I will also be sending a letter to:
Development Policy Manager, Development Services, Warwick District Council, Riverside House, Milverton Hill, Leamington Spa, CV32 5QH

1) Access

The Council's Consultation document completely fails to address the issue of Access to the proposed site simply stating 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. However unless Severn Trent Water are willing to provide access to the site across their land (which they have indicated they would not) then the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate. The Government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particularly for Emergency Vehicles stating that:

'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access
points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m).
Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.

The current farm track would therefore appear to be totally unsuitable. In addition, accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to the site next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which is itself located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorists. In short there are lots of issues around access to the site that the council have simply not addressed.

2) Air, Water and Soil Quality

The Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red) with a 'potential major negative effect'. They have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' but have provided little further detail and clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites state that: 'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk'.

The fact that they have flagged this issue as red but not subsequently highlighted it in either the consultation document itself or the response form suggests that this is another area to focus on.

3) Flood Risk
Again the Council's own 'Sustainability Agreement' identified this as an area of concern (flagged as yellow) indicating a 'minor negative effect'. Nevertheless they have confirmed that the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3. The government's own guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states that 'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (Zone 3 areas)'.

The Consultation Document states that the Council has a technical report endorsed by the Environment Agency saying that the risk of flooding can (once again) be 'mitigated' and this will 'eradicate the threat completely' but the report is quite high level and simply sets out possible options that could potentially address the flooding risk so it doesn't mean that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated. Nor does it detail the cost of all this mitigation work.

Given the Government's own guidelines the Council will need to prove definitively that the risk of flooding can be completely eliminated (as well as explaining who will pay for all the necessary work)
or clearly the site is not suitable.

4) Local Economic Impact

In the Council's own Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all. Given that the Tournament Fields business park remains partially developed after almost 10 years and the likely effect on future demand if a Gypsy and Traveller site is opened opposite to it, this clearly suggests that the Council is trying to avoid the whole issue of the negative effect on the local economy that the proposed site could have. This seems totally at odds with the claims that the Council have made over the years for the positive effect that Tournament Fields would have on the local Warwick economy.

I wish to raise my formal objection to the land being used at Stratford Road for a Gipsy and Traveller site due to the following reasons. The process WDC has followed to select the Proposed Site as a preferred option has been flawed and before any site can be selected a more transparent, democratic and evidence-based process must be run. The public consultation has been misleading and sending a housing officer to the public meeting rather than a member of the planning team unacceptable or a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation. The process followed is far from widely accepted best practice and the ones implemented for the rest of Warwick in previous consultations which we were not part of due to this site being discounted and then being added in at the 11th hour.

My planning objections are as follows:-
- The Severn Trent Land is not available for development immediately and although you have insisted it is available they have committed in writing that they do not support this plan and additionally will not allow access through their land.
- Any use of a CPO would fail the governments planning criteria on land being immediately available and the land proposed is not currently in your ownership
- The Size of the site is inappropriate for the small village of Longbridge which has protected Rural status, and the site size is right at the top end of the current planning guidelines.
- Building this close to the M40 has significant health risks for children and should be discouraged.
- Over subscription off the local schools and no funding in place currently to build the new promised school although permission has been granted
- Poor Access to the site on a dangerous corner off A429 - the planning guidelines state that due to the length of the vehicles involved this needs to be built into the road design and current lane to site is not fit for purpose and needs to be improved
- Land is on a flood plain and although the council has quoted a study to say the risk can be managed, the study itself warns against this conclusion as more studying is required. Additionally there are no costs associated with this work.
- Your own assessments raised a red flag against air, water and soil quality on site but doesn't state how you will resolve this.
- The noise assessment undertaken at the site is not of an acceptable quality as it only occurred in a single 4 hour period in good conditions - this was noted in the report and you are well aware of its shortcomings

We write to voice our objections to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site at Stratford Road.

CONSULTATION PROCESS
Firstly we would like to express our concern at the lack of effort made to consult on this proposal properly. our points on this are as follows:
1. It was not included on the original list of options and was only recently proposed, so residents have had almost no time to find out about the proposal and to share their thoughts.
2. we have seen little information on this proposal, and certainly no communications from the Council on something that will affect us all and particularly the local residents (of which we am one).
3. The two meetings where representatives from planning/the council were available to talk to the public were held during the day when we was working full time, so we was unable to attend. we am also given to understand from those who did attend that queues were long, time with planners was minimal and incorrect information was given out, which is surely not good enough for a sufficient public consultation, where residents and concerned local parties should have access to all the facts.
4. The public meeting held by local residents to discuss the proposals, to which planners or councillors (whose wages WE pay) were invited to attend and explain the proposals, but they declined to join what was an orderly meeting.
Certainly we believe that the consultation has lacked for public engagement and has been conducted (pushed through?) on a tiny timescale and has therefore not been fair, transparent and reasonable. There has been a lack of information and engagement, and the decision making process has been unclear. For this reason, the consultation should at very least be re-done to allow residents a fair say.

Objections:
There are a number of reasons why we object to this proposal. The site would not constitute an attractive place to live, being between a motorway (pollution, fumes, particulates, volume of traffic; all contributing to poor air quality and noise), a sewage treatment works, which on a bad day can smell all the way up Stratford Road, and the Stratford Road itself, which is a busy and fast road with a difficult bend which is a known accident spot. There are also safety issues with the roads, the river and the treatment works, all of which would make the site fairly unsafe for small children. It might be possible to make the site safe, but at a significant cost to the taxpayer, of which we am one!
The area is also unsuitable as there is no real access, only a dirt track bounded by trees, which would likely have to be removed. The dirt track is not suitable, and making it so would again cost lots of money. The turn in at the accident spot on Stratford road is also unsuitable and would likely only increase the accident rate there. Visibility is not great and it would be difficult for huge caravans to turn in there, even were the access road upgraded to be suitable.
It is noted that the area is also a flooplain, so named for good reason. There is a flood risk here and we know that the river does flood regularly - the castle have lost their central island several times over the past few years, so the river can come quite high.

There will also be significant impact on local amenities such as the Doctor's surgery and schools, as the site would be able to grow (Gov regulations state it should be able to grow) and this would also not help at all with integration with the local community. There is also the issue of the proximity of the camp to the existing local residents, where the site would be out of character with the current buildings and would therefore impact on the local area. It is unlikely that there would be good integration with the local community and there might also be an impact on tourism, as this would be the first part of Warwick visitors directed into Warwick this was would see, and it would be out of character from the main part of town in a town that relies heavily on tourism for employment, revenue etc..

There are many other reasons and we could go on, but the deadline presses. Please note that we also support the "mega proposal" by the Chase Meadow Residents Association. we sincerely hope that this proposal will be rejected outright, or if it does go further, will be subject to proper consultation with local residents rather than what it seems as though is being pushed through as an afterthought.

see attached

Preferred Options Consultation - Land at Stratford Road, Warwick - Objection
I am sending this using the email option instead of using the standard form, which I was quite unable to find on the website. If that causes difficulties for a Chartered IT Practitioner like myself, many other potential objectors may have just given up.

I was also disappointed that no Council representatives were prepared to come to the recent public meeting organised by Chase Meadow Residents Association, so there was no chance to discuss e.g. why two large sites had been selected rather than several smaller ones, which would be more easily manageable. Also, whether the GT15 Land off Europa Way site, if no longer needed as a transit site (as I was told by a Planning Department representative at the previous consultation meeting) could be one of those smaller sites, with the other sites reduced.

Two factors which have restricted the Public Consultation process! Reasons for my objection:

Access
The existing single farm track is completely unsuitable, and there appear to be no viable plans for improving it to the acceptable standard, or adding an alternative access for use in emergencies.

Air, Water and Soil Quality
The claim that the effect of the smell from the sewage works can adequately be 'mitigated' by drawing a smaller circle round the works is clearly disbelieved by residents of the nearer parts of the Chase Meadow estate. It depends which way and how strongly the wind is blowing.
The continuous roar of traffic on the A46 70mph dual carrriageway very close to the site also blights all parts of the Chase Meadow estate, particularly now part of the road is on a high flyover. This location clearly breaches Government guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites, requiring that: "It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk'.
Former Sites GT20 and GTalt24 were dismissed partly on the grounds of having noise and air quality issues. Site M40 corridor was dismissed on the grounds of 'severe noise issues . . which could not be overcome in a way that may be possible for conventional houses'. Why not dismiss the Stratford Road site on the same two grounds?

Flood Risk
Part of the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3, and there are no specific plans (or costings) to mitigate that. The threat of flooding generally is expected to increase with climate change. Former Sites GT20 and GTalt24 were dismissed partly on the grounds of being in flood zone 3 (also 3a, 3b). Why not dismiss the Stratford Road site on the same grounds?

Effect on the local Economy
There is a need to attract more business development to complete occupation of the Tournament Fields business park, and there is ongoing residential development on and around Chase Meadow. Take-up of either of these is likely to be affected by the proposed G&T site. Site GT19 was dismissed partly on the grounds of impacting significantly on the viability of existing businesses/residential uses. Why not dismiss the Stratford Road site on the same grounds?

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site at Stratford Road, Warwick.

This site has been introduced at short notice and was not on the previously available original consultation list which people could have awareness of. Because of this the majority of people did not know that this area was a potential site and have not had sufficient time to formulate an opinion.

The proposed plans to include an employment area is ridiculous, since there is already land available on Tournament Fields which has not been able to be sold. Additionally, the creation of an employment area there would increase the traffic congestion that already occurs on the Stratford Road around that location due to the vastly increased traffic flow created by all the new housing on Chase Meadow and insufficient entry / exit routes.

The presence of a Gypsy and Travellers site at that location, adjacent to housing and businesses would also lead to a fall in desirability of Warwick as a place to live and trade. We have all seen the waste, rubbish and mess left behind by the Gypsies and Travellers when they have illegally set up recently on Tapping Way, and previously on Myton Fields (several times) and Hampton Road (several times).Similarly at Beausale. This has left the Warwick Council with a considerable clean up bill. What would happen at the proposed site would be no different.

The Stratford Road is probably the prime route for visitors coming into Warwick, do they need to have to pass a Gypsy and Traveller site on their way? First impressions are important, because they always stay, it could be potentially damaging to Warwick's image.

I wanted to put into writing my objection with the proposed traveller site in Warwick. We have recently bought our 'family home' on Lodge Crescent, just off the Stratford Road as we felt it was a very desirable area to move to with our 2 young children. However, we are now in a very difficult position as we have no savings left to relocate (and don't really want to!) but realise that if this proposal is successful we will be sharing, not only our residential location with people who openly refuse to conform with the laws and rules of our government and society but also our doctor's surgery, schools etc etc.

We strongly object to this proposal and will be joining the e-petition recently created.

RE: OBJECTION - Warwick District Local Plan Sites for Gypsies and Travelers 2011-2029 Publication Draft -SITE B Stratford Road, Warwick.


As a resident of Warwick, I would like to object to the proposed allocation of a Gypsy and Traveler Site at Stratford Road, Warwick for the following reasons:

* The site selection process. The process to include this site into the preferred options has been accelerated in an attempt to bypass a fair and true selection process. We live in a democratic society where members of our District Council have been appointed by the public to act in their favor of the majority. It is in no way in our favor to accelerate this decision without due care and input from the local society.

* Green Belt: Too many areas around our town have been lost in recent years with a new housing development; I wish the countryside to be preserved for future generations.
Sites considered have ignored the government and Council's policy on protecting the greenbelt..

* Road Safety: The A46/M40 junction is a busy duel carriageway and motorway interchange will have to deal with the additional load of current approved developments along with Traveler traffic which will almost certainly increase the risk of road accidents and fatalities.

In conclusion, I would like it to be made clear that I consider the Plan to be unsound and not legally compliant on the grounds that it:
a) Was not positively prepared
b) Is not justified
c) Is not effective
d) Is inconsistent with national policy

I also do not think the plan was prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate I would therefore like Site B removed from the plan.

My name is lucy Nash-jones and I currently work locally as a secondary school teacher and live with my husband who co owns Nash-White hairdressing in warwick and our little 18 month old boy. We have recently purchased a property on Chase meadow and moved in on June 18th this year.

As we were already living in Leamington Spa we were fully aware of the need to have permanent sites for travellers and that the twenty strong short list had been reduced to five. we did check the closes proposed site to chase meadows before purchasing the property as this would of impacted where we would choose to live and potentially our property value.

Suddenly these 5 sites have been discounted and three sites including the site on stratford road have all of a sudden become the preferred option even though it was not on the original list.. I find this incredible given that the initial consultations were done over a year ago. I feel this is unfair on myself and other recent chase meadows purchases and had the process been done fairly we would have had the chance to withdraw from the biggest purchase of our life. It is not just the worry of depreciation that is on our minds but the issue of local facilities. We have already been told that the local primary school turned away children in the catchment area last year and that the local surgery is extremely busy. Additional traveling housing is only going to make matters worst.

Apart from our own personal interest the site itself does not seem to be very well placed. The site is extremely close to the
M40 which is an busy motorway this cannot be good for the gypsies or any livestock that they keep. There is also an issue with the smell from Seven Trent sewage work which can be smelt from the stratford road and I have also noticed that the area is on a flood plain. This will cost more as flood defences will need to be implemented,

I understand that the travellers do need a site but how is the stratford road site anymore desirable than the other 20 sites? I am also very disappointed that one meeting has bought about this consultation and feel we have been treated unfairly. Is there anything you can do to help this situation?

see attached

I would like to lodge my objection to the location of the proposed G&T site off Stratford Road, Warwick.

As a Chase Meadow resident, I have no issues with the proposed employment land proposal on the adjacent land as I think this is a suitable location for employment land in terms of proximity to the M40 and A46 and I think this would be a positive development for the district, town and local economy.

However, I believe there are a number of practical reasons to object to the proposed G&T site on the adjacent land, which would be to the detriment of the land, local community and traveller community.

Availability of Location
My first reason to object to the G&T site off Stratford Road is that the two land owners associated with the G&T site, Severn Trent Water and Mr Robert Webb, both of whom have advised Chase Meadow Residents Association that they are both objecting to the G&T site.

Therefore WDC has not, and cannot, provide evidence that the 'chosen site' is more available, more deliverable and/or more viable than all of the other previously considered and rejected sites on the grounds that the landowner is not willing to sell their land for a prospective G&T site.

If a CPO is not a consideration (for commercial and public interest reasons), then the site at Stratford Road is surely not more suitable than any other site considered?

Should WDC consider a CPO, then surely all sites rejected on the grounds that a landowner does not want to sell, need to be reconsidered?

Inadequate Access
On the basis that Severn Trent Water have already informed me in writing that they will be objecting to the location of the G&T site and not provide access via their land to a G&T site - access is a concern.

In the Consultation there has been no indication of how access to the G&T site would be achieved. A detail one would expect to have been considered for a site chosen as a 'chosen site' for a permanent G&T site.

The current access point to the farmland where the site is to be located is via a farm track leading from Longbridge village. This track would be inadequate in terms of its size and condition and further more according to the Government's own guidelines (The DCLG Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice
Guide) it would be unsuitable. I quote from this document para 4.25 - 4.29:

'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.

Furthermore access to the site would be on the sharp bend on the A429 Stratford Road at Longbridge village. Turning into the site from this corner is already hazardous before you consider the potential of increased traffic from up to 15 permanent G&T families. This would be compounded during rush hour periods as the traffic approaching and exiting Longbridge roundabout is already very busy.

Finally on this point, the road from Longbridge roundabout to the corner of Longbridge village has already seen multiple vehicle accidents since 2005 (source crashmap.co.uk) so the approach road to the site is already a hazard before you consider the increased volume of traffic as a result of the development.

Flood Risk
When the site was being assessed prior to consultation, WDC's Sustainability Assessment identified that flooding on the area for the G&T site was a minor negative concern, even though the site is on a designated flood plain within flood zones 2 and 3.

Government guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states that 'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (zone 3 areas)'.

In the Consultation document, WDC indicates that mitigation could be taken to eradicate the threat completely.

However there is no further detail on the options as to how, evidence this can eradicate the threat or who would pay for this mitigation and whether this would be commercially viable.

So given the Government's guidelines, I object on the grounds that WDC has undertaken insufficient research to prove that mitigation work can be undertaken to completely eliminate any flood risk on this 'chosen site'.

As such WDC cannot meet Government guidelines for planning any form of residential developments within flood zones.

Air, Water & Soil Quality
In the WDC Sustainability Assessment, it identified that Air, Water and Soil Quality was an area of significant concern (flagged as red)

As per with flooding, WDC have suggested that these issues could be 'mitigated' against but yet again, very little detail for a site with a status of 'chosen'.

However as the report acknowledges, clearly a site located very close to a sewage works and a busy motorway is likely to have issues with all 3 and therefore is not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

Government guidelines on planning Gypsy and Traveller sites states:

'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk'.

I object on the grounds of WDC have selected a 'chosen site' having already acknowledged the risk associated with close proximity to a sewage works, river and motorway by flagging this criteria as a red. However, no detail has been provided on how these concerns can be mitigated against so it clearly makes the site unsuitable for the traveller community who then use the site.

Furthermore, proximity to the M40 must be an important factor because when considering alternative sites (WDC Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessments, August 2014) along the M40 corridor, WDC advised that there are severe noise issues within this area which could not be overcome in a way that may be possible for conventional houses.

Local Economy
In the WDC Sustainability Assessment, it identified that Economy was flagged as an uncertain (?).

Having consulted with the owners of Tournament Fields, they have made their feeling very clear that a G&T site in such close proximity to Tournament Fields would have a detrimental effect on prospective businesses considering Tournament Fields for office space.

As a result I am aware that Tournament Fields have objected to the proposed G&T site.

Whilst we may be slowly moving out of recession, the addition of a G&T site in such close proximity to what WDC's Chief Executive has called "Warwick's Premier Employment Site", can only have a negative effect on attracting local business to Tournament Fields.

I therefore object on the basis that a G&T site can only have a negative effect on the local economy.

However, WDC may place the location of a G&T site ahead of employment in terms of importance?

Local Community
The fact remains that of the 20 or so sites that have been consulted upon, the 'chosen' Stratford Road G&T site is closer to a large existing residential community than any other site assessed throughout this process (exception being Hampton Road GT12).

One of the key criteria used to assess G&T sites, is "Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community".

Taking this into consideration, my objection on these grounds is influenced by over 400 signatures have been collected by Chase Meadow Residents Association in objection to the G&T site off Stratford Road on planning grounds. This does not include additional residents contacting you to object directly but, does include residents of The Peacocks and Longbridge village who will be most affected by the disturbance, noise and traffic from the residents of such a large permanent G&T site.

Surely the volume and strength of opinion on this matter has to be taken into consideration, when assessing the suitability of a G&T site?

The ideal site, within W'k District for a G & T site is the Ford Foundry car park, which did have 75 Volvo trucks parked there ready for an auction. It is large enough and hard standing, so problems with flooding.

Please take Page 6 as the cover, with its short forms.

MY OBJECTION TO THE GYPSIES & TRAVELLER SITE ON STRATFORD ROAD, WARWICK
Warwick Town Council has rejected this site on planning grounds and feels the Localism Act is being ignored with such a weight of evidence against this site.
Planning Grounds:
1. Too close to main arterial road leading to historic town & Castle, will not attribute to the aesthetics of Warwick
2. In close proximity to two hotels
3. Ditto to prestigious training centre
4. Tournament Fields (employment) not yet fully let
5. Near existing employment land
6. Near huge 21st C housing estate
Warwick Town Council's objection is:
"The above site was not included in previous consultations because of the proximity of the sewage works, although it was in the area of land on which the DC informally consulted with the Town Council as land for commercial development, which the Town Council supported.
All the other proposed permanent sites, with one exception have fallen and the DC have now identified a site on the land referred to above and which is located within some 37 metres of the nearest residential property and located 400 metres from the Stratford Road and 760 metres from the M40 Junction.
Schools and communities are located within some 1.2 miles of the access to Longbridge Farm and there is a regular bus service in Stratford Road.
There may well be issues regarding flooding and access, for unless access is provided through the proposed commercial development, access would be via a narrow country lane, which passes a number of rural houses. The WCC have not yet advised on this issue.
Local residents have expressed concerns regarding the proposal to locate a G & T site at this location and cite as concerns:
The overall views of the Local Planning Authority are that this would apply to this land which should be developed for commercial rather than residential purposes.
Residents consider that the land should be regarded unsuitable for residential use because:
1. The close proximity of the sewage works and the M40
2. The inadequacy of access via Longbridge Lane
3. Issues regarding flooding possible contamination to the River Avon
4. The possible loss of amenity to residents on the access route
Why is the land suitable for residential use for a G & T site, but not general residential development? The same planning considerations should apply."
Derek Maudlin, Warwick Town Clerk
Access, Air, Water & Soil Quality, Flood Risk, the effect on the local economy and the fact that this proposed site pitch for 15 units is on the main highway from J 15 M40 down which most of Warwick Castle's 775,000 visitors arrive. It is unacceptable for a G & T site to be sited on an attractive entrance to the main Castle car park, bearing in mind that the Tree Council have just planted 2000 whips along the hedges of Stratford Road, to grow into magnificent deciduous trees in the years to come. This is forward thinking and the proposal for a G & T site is a negative proposal.
The effect on the Local Economy has been flagged up in many emails, 15 caravans (say 3 to a unit) = 45 people, will more illegal encampments take place around arguing with the flock of sheep for space, Budbrook School is in "special measures" because of over-crowding. The illegal encampment on Tapping Way, this summer, has frightened many residents. So they have direct experience of living with G & Ts. They left behind gas cylinders, toys, black sacks of rubbish, crockery, cardboard boxes and human waste. [All cleared up by Martyn Stacey's teams of RRUs]. All the rakes were stolen off the golf course on the Racecourse.
This land is not suitable for human habitation as planning would not be considered for houses, so why is it suitable for caravans? WDC has flagged this up as (?) so even officers don't know whether this should be RED, negative or GREEN, acceptable.
I have been inundated with over 90 emails from Stratford Road, The Peacocks & Chase Meadow residents and today, Fri 12 Dec, they are still arriving with the main objections being the stink from Severn-Trent Water's sewage disposal site. Admittedly the stink is less than it was in the 1980s along Stratford Rd, when I came to live in Warwick, but nearer the sewage works and across the road in Chase Meadow and adjacent in Longbridge Manor the sewage works lets out a terrible smell four times a day, presumably when they release a valve to emit the gases, at 9 am, 2 pm, 9 pm and 2 am. This summer (2014) was warm and even the nights were warm so Chase Meadow residents up at 2 am with babies to feed and the windows open were very conscious of the stink.
Chase Meadow Residents' Association organised an excellently run Public Meeting, at Aylesford School, on 4th Dec 2014, when Rt Hon Chris White MP addressed them on the badly organised consultation process. Then there was a presentation on their main objections, on a power point slide show. At the end, 8.45 pm, a few sensible questions were asked and answered by the Chairman and his deputy. There was no representative from WDC Planning Dept or the Leader, Andrew Mobbs. The one objection that hadn't occurred to me was the amount of money it will take, from WDC to make this land suitable. Figures of £250,000 to £3M have been suggested. George Osbourne's autumn statement emphasised that further savings have to be made in grants from HMG to Local Authorities. So the money just will not be there. Longbridge Lane is photo-ed in todays' Courier clogged up with stationary cars, there is no room for trucks/4 x 4s towing caravans to get down there. Therefore there must be another access.
The front cover of today's Courier is about, as they see it, the flawed Consultation process, by CM residents. What it should have had is "WHAT A STINK" as a headline as it is insensible to even suggest putting families adjacent to a sewage works.
The two Friday afternoons in Chase Meadow Community Centre, 2.30 to 6.30 were staffed by Mrs T Darke and a housing officer on the Friday I attended. CMRA residents assert these sessions finished too early for most people to attend, as they all travel a long way to work. They have chosen to live in Chase Meadow on the edge of the wonderful historic town of Warwick and feel cheated. The afternoon, I was there, Mrs Darke was very patient in answering questions about the process and the consultation. (The second Fri I collapsed again with the virus I have been suffering with for 6 weeks). I gather many people attended and there was a queue.
I presented a petition at a WDC Meeting to request this site be withdrawn from the WDC Consultation, which fell on deaf ears. I feel I have done my best in getting CMRA to present to you their 27 page objection, which was presented at the Public Meeting and I endorse all they say. They, of course, agree with Warwick Town Council. Along with the petition, there was a copy of two separate letters from Severn-Trent Water on why they will NOT ALLOW a G & T site within easy reach of water treatment plant, or a new access road.
What I would like to know is, why are Warwick West residents/citizens being treated as second-class citizens when all our objections are ignored? The petition has seemingly had no effect as the Consultation (ending on Fri 12 Dec) is going ahead. Many of the emails, I have received, cite various other parts of England where G & T sites have been organised by other DCs cf: Croydon flytipping, Gunnersbury Park (Grade 2 listed park) destroyed by tons of rubbish in June 2014, Daily Express article on couple driven to suicide in Aug 2014 in Bosbury, Herefordshire, in the EU Brussels City Council drove away 30 caravans by blasting Dire Straits rock music at 95 decibels through 10 large megaphones.
Another correspondent, newly married and moved to Warwick from Somerset, cites her parents' bankruptcy when their chicken farm was driven out of business by gypsy vans parked across their access drive, so feed lorries could not approach, which is just an example of what happens when a G & T site is approved. I really do fear for my constituents' lives, livelihood and whether Chase Meadow will become a ghost town because of the proximity of the proposed site on the other side of Chase Meadow and Tournament Fields. We all know about the money spent by Essex CC removing Dale House Farm caravans
Both Newburgh School and New Dispensary (GP practice) are fully subscribed and there is no hope of anymore children being admitted or patients registering there. WCC have recently expanded Newburgh School to accommodate the primary school children from Chase Meadow and there is now a proposal to build an extension to Aylesford School to be a 4-18 year old school, but that is NOT there yet and will take 18 months to build. [Mid 2016]
Several people cite the land straddles a transition from the urban fringe of brown field environment to an area of open agricultural land which provides an appropriate setting for both the town - with St Mary's Church Tower visible for miles around - and the Castle. As Heritage Champion we are continually being urged to consider the setting of both town and tourist attractions. The aesthetics of Warwickshire Countryside should be maintained and the uncluttered view from the M40 of Warwick town centre and its Castle should be kept.
Sustainability is the current watchword, with crime and disorder so much in evidence and with these over-stretched schools/doctors where will the G & T families get schooling and medicine? This site is just not sustainable, so close to the stink. Warwickshire's Director of Public Health report cites various aspects of planning almost encouraging road traffic accidents (dangerous corner of A429 by Longbridge Lane) so siting this G & T units alongside J15 M40 and the A46 is just asking for .trouble. Once again, WCC Highways have not put in an objection on these grounds. So I am. Two more emails today citing this dangerous corner and the queuing traffic trying to get to the J15 M40 roundabout to access either the motorway or the A46.
WDC is now more involved in Health with its own Health sub-committee so Health must be brought into the argument. It is unhealthy to site this G & T site here because of the proximity of the river, the sewage works and the motorway. The air quality is not sufficient for humans to breathe (apart from the few houses along Longbridge Lane and Paul Preston's farm). The stink from the sewage works precludes this site from being considered.
Tournament Fields is a Severn-Trent Water investment in employment land with office blocks approached by a beautifully maintained entrance of two lakes (balancing ponds) with fountains. This is now 10 years old and almost fully let. When I was Mayor of Warwick, I cut the sod for the Pure Office block and opened Eagle Burgmann office and workshop.
Longbridge Manor, now HQ of Forever Living Products, is beautifully maintained and has lovely gardens. Major Gray-Cheape of Warwickshire Yeomanry, a hero of the Great War, who owned this house and stables at the beginning of the 20th C would be proud of them. However, with the threat of a G & T site almost adjacent to them they are horrified. Their PR manager has been in touch expressing their horror.
Longbridge Lane is one of the few remaining remnants of historic landscape on the main route into Warwick and is designated as a "rural area" by WDC and is thus "protected from inappropriate development that would destroy its character and is not essential to meet local needs". This is important because by their very nature G & Ts are not local. It is only to include a site for the draft Local Plan to be accepted. Additionally there is no need for any more employment land as Tournament Fields is not yet fully let.
Katie Kwell, Managing Director of Pure Offices, Newbury, Berks objects as they have 14 sites within England and this one was the fastest to let because it is in such an ideal situation, alongside a motorway junction, near an international airport, decent housing and hotels. A G & T site on the other side of Stratford Rd would ruin their business.
Alongside is the Porridge Pot Holiday Inn, well used by Eagle Burgmann staff. They actually shut their cafe and restaurant when the illegal encampment, along Tapping Way, was in existence.
All this is actual evidence, gathered from my constituents, and is valid and is material evidence as to why this site should not even be considered for a G & T site.
HMG's advice for G & T sites state they should be in a safe environment, WDC has flagged up this aspect as RED (negative) so what mitigation are you proposing? Is it safe to put caravans and families with children in between a river (flooding problems) and a motorway junction with noise 24/7? It is safe for them to be adjacent to a sewage works with its stink? Surely that is a "hazardous process"? So will this site ever get through the planning process?
WDC cite this as YELLOW (minor negative) as it is within flood plains 2 & 3. G & T sites are vulnerable (caravans and families with children) and should not be permitted where there is a high probability that flooding will occur. Who will be the underwriter if these caravans and families are washed away in a flood? The Local Authority? Will the Environment Agency insist that WDC clean up the river if caravans are washed away, with their detritus?
A family has moved here from Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leics, and object on local services being already over-stretched as both daughters could not get into the same school so one is dropped off and the other daughter is continually late at the other school, so is in permanent trouble for lateness and mother is late in at work to pay for after school-care so this G & T proposal will make traffic worse, schools even more overcrowded and Warwick less of a desirable place to live in.
Cllrs in Warwick have a huge burden fighting against this proposal and another constituent thinks crime levels will soar (if this site is allowed) so we will be at fault. Why ruin the tourist entry into Warwick and its Castle from a prestigious and privileged environment safe for families to one of insecurity just because WDC has to bend over backwards to include a G & T site in their draft local plan.
One family has moved here from Bucks and is so disgusted and vehemently against this site in a town so heavily involved in tourism and on the main route into town and the Castle, they want to move away. Warwick families, who've moved to CM to new houses to save on maintenance, have put up with the accompaniment of noise, dust and clutter from the builders building more houses closer to Stratford Road, feel this proposal will stop further development because when they are built they will be more difficult to sell. Connells, at the moment, deny this.
One family have moved to CM from Warwick Gates because of the G & T proposal in Harbury Lane and NOTHING came up in the searches, their solicitor did, about the Stratford Rd site so they are even more angry that this site has been bounced upon the prestigious neighbourhood of CM in the historic Town of Warwick. They feel cheated. Another is now ashamed to be a resident of Warwick and is scared for her children already established in schools with the influx of gypsy children. It's a dreadful place to put families with children, landscaping to disguise it with a hedge or cupressus trees, surrounding the site, will create a little prison and this site is just not suitable. They feel WDC has made a big mistake in suggesting this as a possible site.
This land is not suitable for habitation by the settled community, who live in houses, so why is it considered alright for the G & T people?

LEAVE WARWICK AS IT IS AND REFUSE THIS PROPOSAL.
 
Cllr Elizabeth Higgins' objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site on Stratford Road, Warwick.

I am Warwick West's Town & District Councillor and Heritage Champion for WDC.

There are several short-forms in this report:
Viz:
WDC = Warwick District Council
WCC = Warwickshire County Council
G & T = Gypsy & Traveller
RRUs = Rapid Response Units
CM = Chase Meadow
CMRA = Chase Meadow Residents' Association

THE IDEAL SITE FOR A G & T SITE IS THE FORD FOUNDRY CARPARK OR THE WCC SALT DEPOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF J15 M40.

I am writing to you for the Gypsy / Traveller family's that were cleared from the Kites Nest Lane site in your district following a Secretary of States decision and the Council pursuing a prosecution through the Courts. These family's are homeless. They have strong links with the district.

The family's wish to live in the Warwick District. They are unable to complete restoration of the Kites Nest Lane site due to lack of a settled base. They are unable to identify alternative affordable land on which they can live.

The family's are in desperate need of accommodation. If the Council should be making the site at Stratford North available they would wish to have the opportunity to live on this land, and enter into negotiations with the Council. The land designated for industrial use should possibly be changed to enable the Council to facilitate this rather than the land being identified as for use as a Gypsy Site in its consultation being in private ownership.

If the Council should have no intention of making provision for Gypsy / Travellers in the district it needs to identify this unambiguously so that the Kites Nest Lane site can be reopened to meet need. The site might not be ideal. However, currently it is all that is available.

There needs to be a fair resolution to the problem caused by there being a lack of accommodation for the Gypsy / Traveller community. The family's and myself are willing to meet with the Council to seek a resolution to the problems