Map 1

Object

Representation ID: 68008

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Miss Alison Potter

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: 68009

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Vivienne Gray

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: 68010

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Paul Allin

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: 68011

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr James Bird

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: 68012

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Duggan

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: 68013

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer johnstone

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: 68014

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr Thomas Duggan

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: 68015

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mrs Audrey Akers

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: 68016

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Mr - Featherstone

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: 68017

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Ms - Featherstone

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: 68018

Received: 23/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Geoff Tranfield

Disappointment by local residents and electorate that after years of increasing urbanisation, dominance of traffic and reduction in public services such as street lighting and cleaning, the Council seems set to approve the siting of a business development and a traveller site on Stratford Road.
Outrageous nature of these proposals both in the nature of the loss of amenity implied, the siting of this potential site on EH&S grounds and most certainly the process followed.
Issues of flooding, road access, health and safety and reduction of amenity. Over the last week most of this side of Warwick leading right to the centre has had to put up with a constant foul stench from the sewage works. Allowing businesses (why would they move here?) and fixed residential pitches in an area where people would have to suffer this far more seems more than peculiar.
Nobody of a rational disposition locally would have much faith in consultation when a site appears at the last minute with an opaque plan about further consultation. Previous consultation responses ignored resulting in unprecedented scale of urbanisation and development in the past decade. Few locally have any faith in any further consultation given the ignoring of views expressed at the first one and the 'sneaking in' of this site at the very end. 100 percent opposition shown at local consultation meetings seems of no interest. The procedures you follow maybe 'correct' but are they inherently fair and democratic?
Looks somewhat 'sharp', ie widescale local opposition to the sites proposed has lead to a new site somehow appearing and this rapidly seeming to develop into a desired option.
Other Councils in the UK have been struck with claims for compensation due to damage, increased insurance premiums, reduced house price values and general reduction in amenity where similar overdevelopment has been allowed near longstanding and new residential areas.