Map 1

Object

Representation ID: 67612

Received: 21/10/2014

Respondent: Sue Munday

Cannot see this as a site in list GT1 - GT20. Website should be updated to show sites that are being considered
Too near to the town.
On green belt land that should not be developed
Campsite entrance set up on Banbury Road. Should consider this in preference

Object

Representation ID: 67613

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Mr J.K. Oldfield

No immediate community facilities, shops within walking distance which is along a farm track a considerable way from the highway.
Access to road network poor along badly maintained farm track which would be costly to bring up to necessary standard and cause disruption to residents. Resulting damage to habitats and trees/hedges which would have to be removed.
Where the track meets A429 there is a dangerous bend; the scene of accidents and warning chevrons.
Recommendation for move away from larger sites to smaller with better facilities and integration. Site would dominate local properties and create Gypsy ghetto.
Screening is not in keeping with surrounding area/open farmland. Will be visible from three existing properties alongside it.
Brown field sites should be considered before green field.

Object

Representation ID: 67614

Received: 11/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Knight

Would ruin pleasant area of countryside on edge of Warwick
Is site viable in relation to costs of infrastructure and service provision
Negative impact on biodiversity of riverbank
Size of site would take 60% of need and is not as recommended
Potential business users may be put off
Concerns about regulating, monitoring and payment of local taxes
Access on A429 is on dangerous bend with poor visibility
High levels of traffic movement and long vehicles cause additional hazard
Narrow lane access does not meet standards
Permanent caravans are vulnerable and should not be located in Flood Zone 3. Mitigation could be expensive and a lengthy process
Site is in close proximity to sewage works and Severn Trent has not committed to reducing Cordon Sanitaire
Safety and noise barriers would need to be erected along motorway which is another cost
Noise assessment undertaken inadequate due to time constraints
Site introduced late in the process. Consultation inadequate. WDC did not attend public meeting/

Object

Representation ID: 67616

Received: 09/12/2014

Respondent: Janet Warren

Unclear whether land available with Severn Trent opposed. If CPO used it would be lengthy process
No clear reasons for selecting this site and deselecting others
Noise and pollution from M40.
Proximity to sewage works which would need to be cordoned off for health and safety reasons
Environmental noise assessment flawed as PPG24 is out of date
Effect on economy, Tournament Fields and tourism
In flood zone 3. Caravans highly vulnerable and should not be located there.
60% of need would be located at Longbridge and be out of proportion with village and no integration
Access lane doesn't meet standards
Access from Stratford Road on dangerous bend with poor visibility. Traffic often at a standstill to roundabout.
Larger than WDC said was wanted. Smaller sites easier to manage
Consultation criteria reduced. Site not previously mentioned. Difficult to access information on website. Lack on clear verbal information. Insufficient time for public to engage and raise concerns

Object

Representation ID: 67617

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Alan Hanson

Access and egress onto Stratford Road on dangerous bend. Hazardous to large vehicles with poor visibility
Alternative site is Banbury Road where permission given for commercial caravan site. Would take 15 pitches, has good access and is close to facilities

Object

Representation ID: 67618

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Michele Berkley

Access is totally unsuitable and turn onto farm track already dangerous.
Smells from sewage works.
Traffic noise from motorway.
Flooding
Severn Trent would need to allow access of their land
Impact on local birdlife
No communication received about proposals from WDC

Object

Representation ID: 67619

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Beverley Armer

Schools are at capacity.
GP surgery also full. New housing being built will increase problem
Farm track access is unsuitable and onto bend on Stratford Road
Near to M40 pollution
Proximity to sewage works
On the flood plain
Not proven that infrastructure requirements can be met and at what cost
Screening would be expensive

Object

Representation ID: 67620

Received: 24/11/2014

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Willson

Negative experience of illegal encampments.
On flood plain.
Next to Motorway and by-pass and on tourist route
Local GP surgery and schools will be affected

Object

Representation ID: 67621

Received: 24/11/2014

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Goode

Effect on tourism, hotels, shops and race course.
Lot of land sold for residential use at schools etc
Look at other areas like Kenilworth. Gypsies deserve nice piece of land away from town.
Thickthorn area and around Wardens Cricket ground is ideal

Object

Representation ID: 67622

Received: 20/11/2014

Respondent: Dr Rory Norris

Identified as flood zone 3, a reason for dismissing other sites. Suggested mitigation but not expanded upon and unlikely to work.
Noise from M40 corridor has been reason for dismissing other sites.
Smell from sewage works on estate which is further away.
Loss of Grade 3 agricultural land; reason for dismissing other sites.
Access on dangerous junction and Highway Agency comments not documented yet
Impact on local businesses and hotels
If housing would not be allowed on such a site, should not show lack of respect and allocate for Gypsies and Travellers.
Expand Harbury Lane site instead

Object

Representation ID: 67623

Received: 17/11/2014

Respondent: Mr Paul Butler

Important to keep attractive tourist route into Warwick.
Area had flooded in the past and is in Flood Zone 3
Schools already full due to Chase Meadow development
Drs surgery at capacity
Unsuitable access

Support

Representation ID: 67624

Received: 13/11/2014

Respondent: Miss Jennifer Instone

It has all the pitches for them.
Shops close by for what they need.
Land can be controlled by WDC.
Screened
Need more like this

Support

Representation ID: 67625

Received: 13/11/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Instone

It has all the pitches for them.
Shops close by for what they need.
Land can be controlled by WDC.
Screened
Need more like this

Object

Representation ID: 67626

Received: 13/11/2014

Respondent: Mary Woods

School is too far for small children to walk causing additional traffic on busy road.
Other facilities hardly close by.
May be close to J15 but access is on bend in the road onto narrow roadway.
Screening shown on map, but no physical barrier to river where debris could be thrown in.
Who would clear the mess when they move on?
Not a good advertisement to visitors to the town

Object

Representation ID: 67627

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Miss Siobhan McKenna

Severn Trent will not allow access over their land so how would access be gained. The farm track is too narrow for day to day traffic and emergency vehicles. Access from Longbridge would mean passing Longbridge Manor, which is on a dangerous bend with poor visibility.
Proximity to sewage works, particularly for children; not a healthy/ safe environment.
Area is Flood Zone 3 and caravans vulnerable to flood risk.
Much needed business at Tournament Fields unlikely to materialise opposite such a site.
Council disregards views of residents. Negative experience of this community in last few years.

Object

Representation ID: 67628

Received: 15/09/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Vivienne Robinson

This is main access route from M40 and would not be very attractive.
Developers have gone to trouble of making attractive entrance to Chase Meadow which would be spoiled by caravan site.
Who would want to live next to a sewage works.
Street lights are switched off at midnight. Residents concerned about anti-social behaviour
Why do they need permanent sites paid for by the tax payer if they are 'travellers'.

Object

Representation ID: 67629

Received: 23/12/2014

Respondent: Mr T Barrow

Site not mentioned at all at previous consultation. Suddenly thrust at residents and potential residents.
Occasional smells from sewage works.
Proximity to Aylesford School.
Problems of access to the town. Caravans last thing town needs passing through.

Object

Representation ID: 67630

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: FLP UK Ltd

Longbridge Manor is Grade 2 Listed Building with access which would be used for Gypsy and Traveller site and potential impact on building, grounds and setting.
Access via Stratford Road is on dangerous bend and down unsuitable farm track. could result in queuing traffic and access issues for this commercial business. Intensification of access use is a highway concern and the lane is National Cycle route. Commissioned own report
Noise issues from proximity to M40. Commissioned own report.
In Flood Zone and report states lack of flooding but modelling is out of date and hasn't taken into account building of elevated section of M40 for example. Further modelling is required and effectiveness of alleviation scheme cannot be gauged until this is done.
Other sites taken out of consideration due to flooding without consideration of alleviation.
Concerns for ecology with new hard standings and effect on wildlife
Severn Trent has now mentioned concerns to Council which had not been voiced before.
Not a viable proposition for a family to take on and provide own services and mitigation

Object

Representation ID: 67632

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Mr Andrew Charlett

The consultation document does not include a proposal for access. Clearly if Longbridge Manor was used as one access then this would have to be upgraded at considerable cost. Would Severn Trent allow a second road through their land?
There are no proposals shown on how flood defences would be dealt with and at what cost.
If Travellers are subject to the same rates and regulations as other residents then why do they have to be separated? The cost of providing this site in this location (The viability) is not included in the consultation document. I would suggest Travis Perkins and Ford Foundry site in Old Warwick Road Leamington would tick all the necessary boxes at a much reduced cost to taxpayers.
No evidence of how this proposal would affect the local economy. For example house prices, local hotels, existing development land (Tournament Fields)

Object

Representation ID: 67635

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Luke Connelly

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67636

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Dimitrios Chalvatzis

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67637

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Ms Nicola Salter

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67638

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Nicola Houston

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67639

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Paula Hopwood

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67640

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chris & Melanie King

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67641

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Stephen & Kara Flynn & Murray

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67642

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Bhaves Kotecha

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67643

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Ms Kerry Stewart

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67644

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Stephen Stewart

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.

Object

Representation ID: 67645

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Damian Timms

It is by no means certain that the site is actually available and, at the very least, the question of availability is extremely confusing to the public due to lack of information released. WDC has maintained that all parties were supportive of the project and willing to make their land available. However, it is the understanding of CMRA that STW were never made aware of the WDC's intention to include a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial us; a letter from STW states their opposition. Unclear as to whether the other landowner has any intention of willingly selling the site and/or developing it himself. If not, CPO would be required which is uncertain,subject to a public inquiry and the timescales variable but would mean the site is not available now. The local authority must be able to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest which is not the case for 15 families.
No evidence provided that the proposed site would be available, deliverable or viable.
Site requires a significant amount of screening/protection from the main tourist route into Warwick, the M40, the River Avon and the Severn Trent sewage works
It is agricultural land so requires hard surfacing works and connection to utilities
It is in a flood zone area (zones 2 and 3) so requires flood risk mitigation
Existing access roads require improvement to ensure suitability.
Severn Trent will not allow access over their land to the site.
The farm track access would need extensive improvement to meet adoptable standards. Access is needed for emergency vehicles. Access to the farm track requires turning sharply off the A429 Stratford Road close to the M40 Junction 15 with its own safety issues.
Proposed site includes areas classified as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3a. Government advice states that local authorities should ensure that policies 'do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans'. The report by Brookbanks Consulting does not provide any specific evidence that the flood risk can definitely be eliminated, nor does it estimate costs of implementing mitigation options. WDC cannot be confident that the site is deliverable or viable, or ultimately suitable for residential accommodation. WDC should select an alternative site that is not within a Flood Zone 3.
Locating the site next to the sewage works is against government guidelines.
The SA acknowledges the issue of the site being on a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 3, but has provided no further guidance on what the realistic contamination risk is. Furthermore, having acknowledged that there will be a loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, the document provides no further information on how this will be mitigated. Therefore the site is not suitable because issues relating to air, water and soil quality have been identified as a serious potential issue with no plans for mitigation in place.
The noise of the M40 can be heard at all times of day, especially during wet weather. The proposed site is closer to the M40 than the extreme edges of Chase Meadow estate so the noise will be intensified.
This problem is important due to the high density of children likely to be on site, living in homes more susceptible to noise pollution.
Do not believe that the noise assessment undertaken can have captured the environmental noise at the proposed site at its worst especially as recordings were limited in time. WDC cannot have the information it needs to take into consideration the full extent of the noise problem. The author of the report uses PPG 24 (Planning Policy Guidance24: Planning and Noise) to measure each site against. This guidance is out of date. The study needs repeating to avoid time-pressured compromises and utilise current guidance. Before considering the proposed site, WDC should provide evidence that there are not alternative quieter sites. If it can provide such evidence, then noise mitigation works would be necessary impacting the commercial viability of the site (estimated costs of mitigation unclear).
The proposed site should be considered unacceptable from a safety point of view due to it being surrounded by:
a sewage works to the north;
a river on its eastern edge
a busy motorway to the south
the busy A429 Stratford Road to the west.
Local environment would make the site potentially very dangerous for children and mitigation in the form of barriers/fences/landscaping would presumably be required on all four sides giving a feeling of an isolated 'secure compound'.
The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. A significant portion of the site remains undeveloped. Negative publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the site could suppress potential demand still further. The proposed development on STW's land for employment/commercial purposes would also, presumably, have reduced ability to attract new businesses.
The development is out of scale with the existing area.
The disturbance/noise from movement of large vehicles would be vastly different from the current quiet, narrow lane.
It is a green field site. Planners should attach weight to "effective use of previously developed brownfield), untidy or derelict land".
The proposed site is graded as agricultural land Grade 3a. This is noted on the SA but no mention of the Government guidance to avoid using such land is made.
WDC is going against planning guidance and its own judgement when selecting the proposed site to hold 15 pitches.
Accessing the site via the farm track off the lane off Stratford Road would place the main next to a Grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor). However the SA makes no reference to the possibility of this. If it is a possibility then WDC should have flagged this up for the benefit of local residents.
WDC have run a flawed public consultation process.
A lack of detailed information provided. In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has no information whatsoever that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas WDC has alluded to further updates and reports that have not subsequently been published during the term of the 6-week consultation (for example expected guidance in relation to suitability of site access).
The proposed site was not on the short list in early 2014 but became one of the three 'preferred options' in this final round of consultation. This does not reflect a transparent, logical and democratic process.
Information that has been made available by WDC was, until mid-way through the consultation period, only accessible via a prolonged trawl through various links on the website. This did not constitute effective communication or consultation.
Limited publicity of the consultation period resulted in many local residents being completely unaware of the issue, until local volunteers produced and delivered flyers to local homes to raise awareness.
Two drop in sessions were held during the consultation period, both ending at 18:30pm. This precluded most working residents from attending.
CMRA arranged a public meeting at Aylesford School, Warwick. The WDC executive refused to send any representatives.
The consultation and communication process undertaken by WDC has been wholly inadequate. CMRA feels that the credibility of the public consultation has been seriously undermined and has not been of sufficient quality or rigour to meet the statutory requirements for such an exercise and, has been done in too short a time period.