Map 1

I return from a short trip and am disappointed to learn of land being considered that was never included in the original consultation or shortlist.

I wish to register my opposition to Stratford Road even being considered for further consultation. Whilst we know nothing of the position within the land or size of the untravelling traveller community that would be living there, the presence of them at the site will still bring about the same concerns of crime, community integration, strain on local facilities and already fully subscribed schools that other proposed sites within walking distance brought about.

A council report into the piece of land appeared to negate it's use describing it as a urban fringe to brownfield transition and called it an "area of open agricultural land that provides an appropriate landscape setting to the River Avon and Castle Park". Your report says that flood risk and proximity to sewage treatment works are likely to be significant constraints. The site does give off a very noticeable stench regularly throughout the year - to the point where I wonder how residential properties like the nearby bungalow on Stratford Road can actually put up with the smell.

It's already been said in the Council report that the landscape setting and proximity to M40 would also limit the potential for development.

I am aware that the Committee of Warwick Councillors are in the minority when compared with neighbouring wards such as Kenilworth and Leamington but I urge you all to stand fast and support the concerned residents close to this site that seems to have been thrown into the mix in late desperation. You cannot let yourselves be overpowered - the residents of Chase Meadow locale will not and as the threat of consultation grows then so will the opposition and fight.

I wish you all well for this evening debate and hope to hear favourable news as it's result.

see attached

I write to object strongly to the selection of the site on Stratford road Warwick as a gypsy / traveller site - please note this objection.

This site was not even put forward as a potential site in the initial consultation phase and located on one of the main entrances to the historic town will without doubt detract from the image of the town for both visitors and those passing by as it will be visible from the M40.
"The site is considered to straddle a transition from an urban fringe brownfield environment to an area of open agricultural land that provides an appropriate landscape setting to the River Avon and Castle Park. There seems to be good potential for urban expansion in the northern section of the site - although flood risk and proximity to the sewage treatment works are likely to be significant constraints. In the southern part of the site, flood risk, landscape setting and proximity to the M40 will limit the potential for development. It will be essential to consider the landscape setting of the River, Castle Park and Warwick (especially as viewed from the M40) in strategic planning for this area."

I am writing to ask why we living in Warwick chase have not had any notice of intent for a gypsy site on our doorstep?
To whom can I write to to oppose this planning permission

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the above proposal, and would like to count on your support in rejecting approval.
For the many visitors to Warwick who travel along the Stratford Road this would become a most unwelcome ' attraction '.
There are many reports that crime and anti-social behaviour result from the presence of such sites and as this proposal is to be so close to a very large residential neighbourhood this could bring anxiety and tension to a large number of families.
The anticipation that integration of travellers into the local community is rather more hopeful than realistic so the need to place these sites so close to existing residential areas is of little consequence.
I feel that it is necessary to look again at a more acceptable site that has the least local impact and objection, and not just at land that the owners are eager to sell !
I realise that the ever contentious issue of accommodating ' travellers ' is a current ( but I believe under review ) requirement from the Government but I trust that our publicly voted council representatives would be sympathetic to the feelings of those who elected them.
Once again, I hope for your support and would welcome your comments.

I am writing to you as I'm extremely disappointed to hear of a proposed traveller site being built off the Stratford road in Warwick. After our previous experience of illegal travellers who camped on tapping way at Easter and the mess they caused and vandalism, fly tipping and inappropriate behaviour, I am astounded that it could even be considered to place the Travellers on the Main route used by tourists to enter Warwick.
> I am extremely angry that there has been no warning of this before. There has been no communication or signs that this site would be considered. I only found out about this by people who successfully opposed other sites from Barford and the Fosse way.
> This will do nothing but harm the reputation of Warwick for the future. I am aware that there is a shortage of Traveller sites but why on earth Warwick would be considered is beyond me.
> The residents of Chase Meadow Warwick are proud of our town and I feel we have the right to try and protect our community and oppose this proposed site from happening here.
> I hope that I have your full support for our objection to this threat of spoiling a wonderful town.

I'm writing to you regards a communication we've received about a potential traveller gypsy site on Stratford road, Warwick. We've been advised of these plans by a letter from the Chase Meadow resident association, no official communication has been received from Warwick District Council about this.

We currently live on Stratford road, the main road into Warwick, where in the summer the road is continually busy with traffic going to the Castle and town. We have a continuous new development for property at the end of the road and now the Council want to put a gypsy site at the end of our road?!

As this road is the main road into Warwick, the town and castle do the Council think it is appropriate to have cars queuing up to get into one of the UK's top attractions past a gypsy site, is this going to be good for the ecommerce of Warwick town?

Surely there has to be some consultation with the residents? Or do our views not count until this has been passed by the council?

Would it not make more sense to put the site in one of the other proposed locations, where they do not get the influx of traffic that we do, have the strain on schools and other local services that we do due to the continued housing development at the bottom of Statford road.

I look forward to your assistance in this matter.

It has recently been announced that a new site has been identified off of the Stratford Road in Warwick as a proposed location for a permanent Traveller site.

It is not yet clear where exactly on this site the proposed site is due to be located but I would urge you to oppose this location on behalf of the residents of Chase Meadow.

The local schools, shops and Health facilities are already under increasing pressure due to the continued increase in local housing and unless steps are taken to improve these facilities the quality of service will continue to reduce.

In addition to the effect on local amenities I would ask that you oppose this proposal in order to preserve the continued prosperity of the local area.

The local economy is supported due to the desirability of Warwick as a place to live and raise children. Many residents of the Chase Meadow Community move into the area knowing that house prices are not only stable but rising and that the quality of education as well as the safety of the surrounding area is unrivalled.

The location of a traveller site at such close proximity to Chase meadow will not only effect the desirability of the area which will ultimately have a knock on effect on current and future property values.

Please can I ask that you give this your urgent attention and do what you can help to support us.

I am a resident of Chase Meadow, having recently relocated to Warwick from Buckinghamshire.
I am shocked to learn that Warwick District Council is considering establishing a permanent Gypsy & Traveller site at Stratford Road in Warwick & wish to register my disgust and vehement opposition to the proposal. It seems the District Council have added this site "under the radar" and hope to push through the proposals without local residents having a full and free opportunity to register objections.
Warwick is highly dependent on tourism for its income & I cannot believe that the Council would be willing to site an eyesore such as this on the primary route into the town and its main tourist destination (Warwick Castle).

I object wholeheartedly to this proposal & urge the Council to dismiss the plans. If there is a formal process for objection please let me know ASAP & I will complete that.

I am writing in regards to the Plans for a Gypsy Traveller site on the Stratford Road, Warwick.

From my point of view, this plan seems to not be well communicated and possibly undemocratic. There has been no communication with the public and was not even in the original plans. The short notice is not based on a fair process.

I am currently a resident of Chase Meadow, and have recently booked a new plot with Bovis for completion in November. I am likely to make the decision that I will pull out of the purchase and leave the area. Warwick will become an undesirable area to live. Though this is my own opinion, Chase Meadow and Warwick are extremely desirable areas, and this WILL have a major impact on the local area.

The proposed location is not in an area that can be integrated into the landscape without harming the areas character, leaving a visual impact on the approach to historic Warwick. This will damage the Tourist Industry which accounts for a large proportion of business transactions for both Large and Small & Medium Businesses, with a further threat to Warwick Town, along with possible damage to listed buildings. There is also a threat of pollution to the Warwick area with the Site being located in close proximity.

From the traveller point of view the sites location is terrible place to live. On one side of the site is the M40, on the other side is the Severn Trent sewage works. I have also learnt that the site is on a Zone 3 flood zone. These facts alone would need a considerable amount of investment. The provision of utilities on the sites is questionable with running water, toilet facilities, and sewage being bare necessities.

Overall there will be an adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment. Accesses from the sites are directly onto roads within the national speed limit zones. There is one pedestrian footpath. Therefore, there is no safe access to the road network. This is dangerous for large caravans to be turning in and out of the sites along with putting other road user's safety at risk. There will also be a huge impact on our local schools that are already at the maximum. 15 sites with a potential of 2 children at each pitch equals 30 extra children needing education.
There is a concern that although the number of Pitches upon the Sites is to be regulated, the actual numbers of people on the Pitches cannot be regulated or controlled. There is a further concern that the Sites are likely to be operated by the Gypsy Community and not Warwick District Council.
Finally, in your plans you state that Severn Trent are happy to sell the land for the purposes of a Traveller camp, but this isn't in line with what Severn Trent are saying themselves. I would be grateful if this land sale could be clarified.
I hope to here you feedback on this matter at your earliest convenience.

I have just been made aware by the Chase Meadow Residents Association that a site opposite the Longbridge Severn Trent Sewage Treatment Works has been selected on a short list of 3 sites for a permanent traveller site.

There has been no consultation for this (the original list of 20 did it include this site!) and it would seem this proposal is being rushed through by Warwick District Council. Having seen the mess and tension that travellers bring into communities when the travellers decide to use sites as temporary pitches (twice in the last 12 months they have descended on Chase Meadow!) I am very annoyed that this has only just come to our attention.

Many of the residents of Chase Meadow have invested substantial amounts of capital in their homes recently. This proposal threatens these investments as Chase Meadow will become a less desirable location for potential buyers. Additionally, the site is right at the entrance to the estate which will be not be a great advert.

I am not opposed to permanent traveller sites. I think that everyone is entitled to a permanent base, I just don't want it to be 200 metres from my home!

I'm not sure if my voice and others in Chase Meadow will be listened to as it seems that this is being hurried through. If this is the case then, like many others on the estate, we will be forced to sell our much loved home and move to another location.

I'd be keen to hear your views on this.

I am resident in the Chase Meadow estate and write to express my concern and objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site adjacent to the Stratford Rd.
The news has come as a shock, given that the Warwick District Council (WDC) in all previous communications has made no reference to a gypsy/traveller site in such close proximity to the estate.

A series of public meetings and a consultation phase during the June-July period was based on the Councils proposals of 20 sites (+ 21 added options) as published in Gypsy and Traveller Booklet Mar 2014. None of these options included the land adjacent to Severn-Trent on A46 (!)
But somehow on 13thAugust, in the midst of summer holidays, members of the council recommended the addition and in-fact promotion of this site as being one of three that seems to fulfil the criteria for the provision of the Gypsy and Traveller site.

I feel this proposal is rushed and might be imposed without due consideration to the local community. Chase Meadow is a brand-new thriving and booming estate with great facilities and an ever-increasing influx of middle-class families who view and make the area a dream-destination.
I have first-hand experience of the impact of Roma and Traveller communities to areas they settle. It is a fact that:
* House-prices can be depreciated,
* There will be added pressure to local services (such as GP)
* The general sense of safety is undermined due to this migratory lifestyle.

The WDC has the minimum of responsibility to be forthright about its intentions and inform its community in appropriate timescales.
The rationale for promoting [in such manner] the site in Chase Meadow's vibrant and peaceful estate truly begs a question.

see attached

Response to public consultation on proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Land at Stratford Road, Warwick

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the land mentioned above being allocated and used as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site. I set out my reasons below under several headings, but first of all I wish to inform you of my complete dissatisfaction with the consultation process you have run.

First of all, I only heard of the proposed location of a Gypsy and Traveller site on Stratford Road when the Chase Meadow Residents' Association put a flyer through my door. I find it incredible Warwick District Council didn't see it appropriate to inform the owners of houses most closely located to the proposed site, and left it up to volunteers. From the off, it seems like WDC has tried to keep the proposed location quiet to ensure as little objection as possible.

Secondly, I find the inclusion of Stratford Road in the final short list of three preferred sites as completely against due process. It was not on the original list of c.20 sites (that I reviewed when I bought my house close to the Stratford Road), including it at the last minute highlights a lack of transparency and logic in the site selection process. It suggests to me desperation to find somewhere (anywhere) to include in the Local Plan. When you are considering places for people to live, you should not rush and make compromises - you should select the most appropriate sites, and I believe because the selection process has been so chaotic and changeable, it can't result in an optimal site selection.

WDC has explained that the reason it was included at the last minute was because Severn Trent said they could reduce the cordon sanitaire, as part of a wider employment development. The proposed location of the Gypsy and Traveller site is not in the cordon sanitaire, so that is not the reason why it has now been included - please can you explain exactly why it has been shoe-horned in as a final preferred option at the last minute despite it being considered inappropriate at the previous shortlisting stage.

Thirdly, I think the information that you have provided the public as part of the consultation process has been inadequate, incomplete and does not provide evidence of a compelling reason why the site is considered appropriate by WDC (never mind a preferred option).

In a number of fundamental areas the consultation document has simply provided 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 the 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).

Also - I found it very hard to find the different documents on the website. I see you eventually (half way through the consultation period) put them all in one place for easy access, but before this I had to trawl through various web pages and open many document before I could find things like the third party reports.

Finally, engagement with the public (in my opinion) has been really poor. I attended one of the drop-in sessions (for which I had to leave work early - not a convenient time) at which I had to queue for a long time to speak to anyone from WDC, and when I did ask my questions it was clear that the WDC representative did not have an in depth knowledge of the proposal for Stratford Road. Given WDC refused to attend the public meeting organised by Chase Meadows Residents' Association, the drop in session was the only chance I had to discuss the proposal - and it was wholly inadequate. I have obtained more information from the Chase Meadow Residents' Association than the WDC - which is disgusting given they are volunteers and the staff at WDC are paid to serve the public. I also understand that misleading information was handed out during the drop-in sessions, related to Severn Trent Water's role in the Gypsy and Traveller site - which, to me, just goes to show what a poorly organised consultation process it has been and suggests to me that WDC are not taking the issue at hand and the tax paying public seriously.

Chris White MP roundly criticised the lack of engagement by WDC during the consultation process - so I genuinely don't believe you can consider that the public have been properly consulted, and therefore cannot recommend Stratford Road is included in the Warwick Local Plan at least until an appropriate consultation process has been run.

Reasons for objection to the site:

Suitability of site as a place to live
The site in question is unsuitable for people to live (regardless of who the people are) and I believe that if WDC elects to place Gypsies/Travellers there, they are essentially treating this community as second class, which is atrocious and would bring shame upon WDC and Warwick in general. House builders would not build houses there, as they would know the settled community would not buy them - so forcing Gypsies/Travellers to live there is simply wrong. I'm sure you will say that you have had interest from the Gypsy/Traveller community in the site and they would choose to live there on their own free will - but they would have no choice. If a Gypsy/Traveller family wanted to settle into a permanent site in Warwick - they would have to go wherever the sites are, so indirectly you are forcing them to live there.

The site is unsuitable for many reasons:
* It is on a Flood Zone (2 and 3). Government guidance says you shouldn't locate Gypsy/Traveller sites on flood zones. The report you have released in relation to this suggests extensive work is required to mitigate the flood risk, but that further work is required to assess the extent of the risk and investigate whether the mitigations are actually possible. You should not select the site as a preferred option for the Local Plan until all necessary investigations have taken place and the risk, the feasibility of required mitigations and the cost thereof are all fully understood.
* It is next to a sewage works. Again, government guidance states Gypsy/Traveller sites shouldn't be located next to industrial/sewage sites. I can smell the works from my house, which is at least 10 times further away than the proposed Gypsy/Traveller site so the smell for the residents would be awful. I can't believe you would consider that acceptable.
* It is very close to the M40. The emissions from the cars would surely make the air quality very poor, and given there are likely to be children living on the site - you would be putting the health of Gypsy/Traveller families at risk, who already statistically have shorter life expectancies than average - you should be trying to improve their health, not make it worse.
* The noise from the M40 is also constant and significant. Again, I can hear the motorway at all times of the day from my house, which is much further away than the proposed site. Given caravans/mobile homes have less sound proofing than brick built houses, the noise would be unbearable. I have read the noise report you had commissioned, which seems to say that the noise levels for the site are above acceptable levels. It also states that the study was rushed, so I believe a thorough and complete study is required before the site can be responsibility included in the Local Plan by WDC.
* Finally, the location of the site is surrounded by things unsafe for children: the M40, sewage works, the River Avon and Stratford Road. Protecting the site from all of these things would be expensive and would isolate the community. I think it would feel like WDC was trying to hide Gypsies/Travellers away in a corner where nobody else would live, impeding integration with the settled community.

Land owner support
I have copies of emails from both Severn Trent and David Webb, the two owners of the land apart from WDC, both stating they are against their land being used for a Gypsy and Traveller site, therefore a compulsory purchase order would be required. This would be an expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming process which would stall the Local Plan and waste taxpayers' money. I hope that WDC will choose an alternative site that does not require a CPO and is therefore easier and quicker to deliver.

Access
As the land owners are against the site, how will the Gypsy and Traveller families access the land? Severn Trent and the owner of the farm track would presumably not allow access. No mention of the plans for access is made in the consultation documents released by WDC. Given this is such a fundamental issue, WDC should surely provide detailed and proven access plans before the site can be included in the Local Plan. It would be embarrassing for Warwick if our Local Plan is rejected as we selected a plot of inaccessible land for a Gypsy/Traveller site.

I understand that the farm track leading to the land, even if access is given by the owner, is too narrow for emergency vehicles, is in a poor state and is therefore not suitable for large/heavy mobile homes to travel along, according to government guidance. The council rubbish collection services refuse to go down the track to collect bins from the farm down the track, so residents have to walk the bins all the way up to the main road. Surely access is therefore unsuitable.

Access to the site would also require turning off Stratford Road, which is extremely busy during rush hour and fast moving (being just off the motorway) during other times. Having large, slow moving vehicles turning into a very narrow road at a sharp angle on a bend would be dangerous and would add to traffic issues.

Impact on economy
In the Council's own Sustainability Assessment this section is graded as '?' and the supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the Consultation Documentation makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all.

The site would be broadly opposite the 'Tournament Fields' business park development. When this was first opened almost 10 years ago it was to be promoted as 'Warwickshire's Premier Business Park' with high hopes for what it would do for the long-term economic growth of the local Warwick economy. Currently Tournament Fields is still advertising '700,000 sq. ft available' and a significant portion of the site remains undeveloped.

Siting a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site opposite this prestigious development is already generating a huge amount of local controversy and opposition and this sort of publicity will make it even more difficult to effectively market Tournament Fields to new businesses. Given that attracting new businesses has already proven difficult the new site could suppress potential demand still further.

Given creating and keeping jobs in Warwick is so important for the local economy - I can't believe you would even think about even potentially damaging the attractiveness of Warwick as a place to locate businesses.

see attached

I am writing to express my objections to the consideration of the permanent Gipsy and Traveller sites adjacent to the Stratford Road, near the present Severn Trent sewage works within the Warwick area.
Several areas around Warwick have already undergone significant development over the past decade, one such example being the Chase Meadow estate which has already placed a burden on the local infrastructure and amenities. Current and future development will place an even greater burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities; this would only be exacerbated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity.
Further to this the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites will have a huge negative impact on the town of Warwick, especially tourism and the many local businesses that rely upon this. You only have to look at the example set by many shop / restaurant owners who close early when there is an influx of Gypsies and Travellers for the Bank Holiday race meeting.
Moreover, I am left feeling rather frustrated that an additional site has been added to the proposed list of sites at this late stage.
I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are continued to be considered seriously during this process and that common sense prevails and that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families

see attached

Great idea, proposing to put a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site adjacent to Stratford Road near the Severn Trent sewage works.

I am confident that those travellers will be enthralled living within close proximity to a really smelly location. Here in Foxes Way we complain regularly about the smells.

More to the point. Stratford Road is the "gateway" to our wonderful historic town. A "gateway" for many visitors not only from our shores but also the continent. So what a great introduction to this historic location. I can hear the announcement on the coach speaker system. "And here we are now entering this historic town, the original residence of the Earl of Warwick, known as the "Kingmaker" who fought hard to bring to you a Travellers site which can now be viewed on your right as we enter this once historic and less delightful town".

We, and probably many other Warwick residents, object to these proposals and would suggest you rethink the site proposals.

I write to register my protest to the above proposal. While l appreciate that the travelling community is yet another minority that must be catered to and land must be found for a permanent site, placing the site next to the sewage works on the main artery into Warwick used by many visitors and locals alike does not give our town a good image. It should be especially noted that tourists coming into Warwick by coach and those on the upper decks of buses will in all likelihood be given an exceptionally good view of the camp. Do we really want to promote Warwick in this way?

It is also a regrettably well known fact that Warwick already experiences higher levels of petty crime on the days when the market comes to town. Do we really want those who live on the Stratford Road and West Street to be exposed to yet more petty thievery and door to door selling by encouraging this site on our doorstep?

I do not know where the other sites are located but l would imagine they would not have as much impact on quality of life for residents and tourists alike as this site.

I am writing to express my objections to the consideration of the permanent Gipsy and Traveller sites adjacent to the Stratford Road, near the present Severn Trent sewage works within the Warwick area.

Several areas around Warwick have already undergone significant development over the past decade, one such example being the Chase Meadow estate which has already placed a burden on the local infrastructure and amenities. Current and future development will place an even greater burden on the local schools, doctors, roads and recreational / social facilities; this would only be exacerbated by the locating of Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity.

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

Moreover, I am left feeling rather frustrated that an additional site has been added to the proposed list of sites at this late stage.
I do hope that the views of the Warwick population are continued to be considered seriously during this process and that common sense prevails and that the historical town of Warwick can continue to be the wonderful place it is to live and raise families.

I write with reference to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site adjacent to the Stratford Road, Warwick.

I run a small B&B further along this road, at the beginning of West Street...I pride myself in endeavouring to make my property smart..keeping it well maintained and spending money on hanging baskets/flowers to give passers-by a good first impression of my business and the town itself. I strongly believe that the A429 road from Junction 15 is a well used road for both locals and more importantly visitors to our town (who generate considerable revenue for the town as a whole!)...

Money has also been spent by investors to develop businesses at Tournament Fields and the area has been landscaped to a very high standard. This once again gives both locals and visitors a very good impression as they travel along the A429 into Warwick.

I, therefore, find it very hard to believe that when others are spending money in investing in the county to improve it...the council wish to introduce a Gypsy/Traveller site which will do nothing to enhance the entrance to Warwick whatsoever, in fact, within the last 12 months, travellers have parked up within that area...and the rubbish and mess that they created and left when they departed was a disgrace. Any Gypsy/Traveller sites I have ever seen are not well maintained and they don't appear to take pride in how they present themselves.

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL.
--------------------------
I object to the proposal in principle and also for practical reasons:
-

1.I don't believe that valuable land should be used for a site which favours one selection of people over another. If any other residents of Warwick wanted a piece of land to permanently site their caravans


-----------

then planning would be refused. If they are genuine travellers then why not persuade a local farmer to rent out his field for a few weeks and then move on to another area.

2.It is not practical because the Stratford road is already extremely busy and this proposal would put extra strain on the road.

Also Warwick is one of this countries major market county towns of which we are very proud.Do we really want a Gypsy and Traveller camp blighting the main approach to Warwick and Warwick castle

I am writing to protest against the proposal of a site as per above. The last time travellers set up near Chase Meadow, they left a tonne of refuse incl. such items as gas canisters etc fully exposed. Once again, I formally express my protest.

see attached

see attached

I was very concerned to hear about the proposal to establish a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site with 15 pitches adjacent to the Strartford Rd near present Severn Trent Sewage works, Warwick.

I wish to object to the proposal as I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the gypsy and travelling communities. The proposed site and associated facilities in Warwick would not be suitable nor meet the needs of the gypsy and travelling community, nor the existing communities of Chase Meadow,Warwick ,for the following reasons; -

Road Safety/Road Access -
Road access to the site is via an extremely busy "A 429, Strartford Road", where there have been a number of accidents over the years. It is the nearest access to M40 Jct 15 for those who works in the 'Pure Offices Warwick' and the residents in the chase meadow area . During the rush hours, vehicles traveling at fast speed due to the slip road layout and down slop.

Plus west midlands ambulance service -Warwick hub also based in this area, the influx of people will be put in a very vulnerable position. The one-lane road is congested by the bus stops and school run parents, with additional traffic load, will make the residents suffering from the extended travel time.

Health
The nearby sewage will also be a potential risk for the gypsies and travellers. The unpleasant smell from the plant and the fertilizer from the surrounding farm land will more or less make impact to their life.

Local facility and employment.
Local school and surgery are both over loaded. with additional subscribers will effect their normal operations.
fertilizer.
Employment opportunities within Warwick are extremely limited as the majority of small businesses are family run, and therefore mainly staffed within the family. therefore, low employment rate might create further issues such as anti-social behaviors, criminal activities. etc.

Landscape:
Strartford road lined to M40, normally being used as a gateway linkage to the well know castle and St Nicolas Park. With the Gypsy & Traveller site's present, the outstanding beauty natural green will be altered. The footpath may be adversely affected.

Property Value
Last but not least, any surrounding houses with Gypsy Traveller site within walking distance will have a sufficient depletion of value.


To sum up, based on the ground above, I wish Warwick district Council Planning Department can register my objection to the Gypsy and Traveller site with 15 pitches adjacent to the Strartford Rd near present Severn Trent Sewage works, Warwick

This letter lays out my objections to the land detailed above being allocated and used as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site.

The first point I wish to raise relates to my complete dissatisfaction with the consultation process undertaken. There has been little or no publicity surrounding this proposal other than that generated by the resident's association and some local councillors. It is Warwick District Councils responsibility to ensure a transparent and fair process is followed. Paragraph 6a of PPTS states that local planning authorities should: "pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both Settled and Traveller communities'. The process undertaken has not been either early or effective. It has been an 11th hour insertion into the local plan and the process itself has been completely inadequate (for reasons I will cover below). In fact the inclusion of Stratford Road in the final short list of three preferred sites is completely against process and planning guidelines. It was not on the original list of c.20 sites and including it at the last minute highlights a lack of transparency and logic in the site selection process.

Secondly, WDC states that the reason it was included at the last minute was because Severn Trent said they could reduce the cordon sanitaire, as part of a wider employment development. The proposed location of the Gypsy and Traveller site is not in the cordon sanitaire, so that is not the reason why it has now been included - please can you explain exactly why it has been inserted as a final preferred option at the last minute despite it being considered inappropriate at the previous shortlisting stage. In addition, why was the second sustainability appraisal (SA) which was undertaken on this site revised in a number of areas which were previously negative for reasons not clear. This point is not just relating to the flooding risk which I address separately but items such as historic environment, prudent use of land and natural resources. In the document dated February 2014 'Sustainability_Appraisal_of_Gypsy_and Traveller_Site_Options'. These criteria were assessed as minor negatives (the flood risk being a major negative). In the SA produced in July 2014, the potential effects of these items were revised to positive from minor negative (for prudent use of land and resources) and neutral from minor negative (for historic environment). Flood risk had been revised to neutral from major negative. The basis of assessment and in fact the exact parcel of land assessed in the second SA is unclear. This work was undertaken in July 2014 however we were told in August 2014 that they could not identify the exact location of the proposed site, therefore I am unable to understand how the sustainability assessment can be accurate and I am unable to understand from the information provided why the revisions described above were made.

Thirdly, the information provided to the public as part of the consultation process has not been fit for purpose at best and in some cases misleading. It does not provide evidence of a compelling reason why the site is considered appropriate by WDC (never mind a preferred option).

In key areas the consultation document has provided no information that local residents could use in determining the suitability of the proposed site (for example the impact on local economy), and in other areas the 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 ecology report seemed to appear part way through the process despite it being produced prior to start of the consultation period. It was also very difficult at the start of the consultation period to find the expert reports e.g. flood risk. They were contained on an evidence base page alongside lots of other documents relating to the local plan. It was also not clear from the titles of the documents what they related to. Part way through the process, these were placed on the consultation 'home' page. The quality of some of these reports is also questionable, in particular the noise assessment report which seemed to be a 'quick and dirty' assessment to tick a box and not a thorough and robust assessment of the considerable noise issue at this site. In addition, the flood risk report does not address the specific risk to mobile accommodation posed by flooding, which is one of the key areas of concern. It is understandable that this is not addressed as this report was commissioned by Severn Trent who commissioned it for part of the land to be used as an employment site. This report therefore is not suitable for consideration in this process. In conclusion, this is a wholly inadequate way in which to run a consultation process and not acceptable in any way. All of these documents should have been easily available at the start of the process and they should be quality documents providing a thorough and robust assessment of the specific risks attached to a development of this nature.

Finally, engagement with the public has been extremely poor. I was unable to attend a drop in session however my husband attended and I was hoping that the WDC would attend the orderly and well organised public meeting on the 4th December so certain specific questions I had / have could be addressed, however it was reported that as we would voice our opinions that the council would not attend!!! This is terrible and I would like to understand why the council did not provide the residents who could not attend the drop in sessions with an opportunity to ask questions. I also understand that inaccurate information was handed out during the drop-in sessions, related to Severn Trent Water's role in the Gypsy and Traveller site. Not everyone who attended those sessions will be aware that they have received incorrect information, therefore this process has been further confused and in fact the consultation should be considered to have not provided the consultees with the ability to fully understand the proposal and the reasons this site has been selected over other sites.

Reasons for objection to the site:

Suitability of site as a place to live

The site in question is unsuitable for people to live (regardless of who the people are) and I believe that if WDC elects to place Gypsies/Travellers there, it is a poor reflection on Warwick. The point of providing permanent sites is to improve the quality of life for these communities. This should not be considered as just an improvement, it should be considered in terms of equal to settled communities. I think it is morally wrong to offer these communities the option of living next to a sewage works and a motorway, which they may accept as an improvement on their current situation but does not give them the quality of life the planned sites should be giving.

The site is unsuitable for many reasons:
* It is on a Flood Zone (2 and 3). Government guidance says you shouldn't locate Gypsy/Traveller sites on flood zones. The report you have released in relation to this suggests extensive work is required to mitigate the flood risk, but that further work is required to assess the extent of the risk and investigate whether the mitigations are actually possible. You should not select the site as a preferred option for the Local Plan until all necessary investigations have taken place and the risk, the feasibility of required mitigations and the cost thereof are all fully understood. As discussed above the report was also commissioned by Severn Trent in relation to the potential employment site and not the Gypsy and Traveller site (they have confirmed they are objecting against the location also). The government guidelines highlight the specific vulnerability of the Gypsy and Traveller sites to flooding so any report should be specifically addressing this issue. We have been informed the two sites and decisions are mutually exclusive; therefore I do not understand why a report relating to an employment site has been submitted as evidence for the Gypsy and Traveller site.
* It is next to a sewage works. Again, government guidance states Gypsy/Traveller sites shouldn't be located next to industrial/sewage sites.
* It is extremely close to the M40. The emissions from traffic would make the air quality very poor you would be putting the health of Gypsy/Traveller families at risk.
* The noise from the M40 is relentless and significant. In chase meadow, the noise can be heard at all times of day/night. Given I imagine caravans/mobile homes are less sound proofed, this is not a pleasant or healthy environment for families. I refer you back to my comments on the quality of the report produced also, which is not acceptable at this stage in the process.
* The location is unsafe on all sides, which again is not an acceptable solution and will not improve the quality of life to the standard to which it should be raised.

Severn Trent and David Webb, the two owners of the land apart from WDC, both state they are against their land being used for a Gypsy and Traveller site, therefore a compulsory purchase order would be required. This would be an expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming process which would stall the Local Plan and waste taxpayers' money.

I am writing to object to the Gypsy and Traveller site being built on Stratford Road. I understand that the policy in the Draft Local Plan will list the criteria by which Gypsy and Traveller sites will be judged for suitability and sustainability under several criteria and have outlined my objections in accordance with them below:
a. Reasonable distance from local services
Whilst there are local services near to the proposed site it is not clear whether they are able to sustain the increase in population due to the influx of Gypsies and Travellers. In the councils own Sustainability Assessment the section is graded as '?' and states that the effect on the economy is 'uncertain at this stage'. This is not an acceptable assessment of the effect that the Gypsy and Traveller site will have on the local services. There are currently limited services in the local area and it is unclear whether they will be able to support the potential increase in population, for example it is likely that there will not be enough places at local schools to support the increase in children which will have a detrimental effect on the children that already live in the local area, forcing the Gypsy and Traveller children and/or other local children to travel further afield. As a local resident I have also found it very difficult to access a local dentist under the NHS and therefore it is likely that new residents will also find this an issue.
b. Good access to local road networks
Whilst it is clear that the proposed site is very near to the A46/M40 junction, the exact details of how to access the proposed plot has not been adequately addressed. Information published in the proposal states 'advice expected soon'. Again, this is unacceptable to plan a site and hold a consultation without the necessary information needed. The current narrow farm track to the land is inadequate and would not provide access for emergency vehicles as outlined in the government guidelines regarding the necessary arrangements for Gypsy and Traveller sites. One proposed new access road to the site would also place the main entrance of the site next to a Grade II listed building. This is also located on a dangerous bend with poor visibility to motorists thereby putting the public at increased risk of serious road traffic accidents which would not be acceptable.
c. Suitable size
The site is of suitable size, however with size of plot comes increased residents to the local area, with an unknown impact on the local economy (See points in a) and also an uncertainty with regards to whether the access is acceptable (See points in b) and whether the infrastructure requirements can be met (see points in d). All of this is unclear and unacceptable with regards to a proposal.
d. Infrastructure requirements can be met
The council's own assessment states that air, soil and water quality are of 'significant concern' and notes that the development of a Gypsy and Traveller site could have a potential 'major negative effect'. Although it claims this can be 'mitigated' there is little further detail with regards to this which is unacceptable. A site close to a sewage works and a busy motorway network will also require a significant cost to rectify these aspects to ensure safety of the Gypsy and Traveller community residing in the area to ensure their safety. There is also a flood risk associated with the site and according to the government guidelines, Gypsy and Traveller sites should not be built where there is probability that flooding will occur. Whilst 'mitigation work' has been alluded to, there is no information with regards to what this will be, how much this will cost or whether the risk can be eliminated which is again unacceptable.

e. Potential for the site to be adequately screened
I am unaware of any information as to how the site will be adequately screened. The Stratford Road site is the main entrance road into Warwick from the motorway and a high amount of tourists travel up the road. Even with a screen, I believe that the Gypsy and Traveller site will still be visible to the people visiting Warwick and will have a negative impact on the impression of the beautiful medieval town and ultimately on the popularity of it.

There are therefore multiple reasons to object to the Gypsy and Traveller site being built on the Stratford Road site in Warwick for all of the criteria points that have been noted above. I believe that there is not enough information and not enough thought has gone into the details of the plan. It is therefore imperative that it does not go ahead.

We have recently learnt of the Council proposal of a permanent Gypsy & Traveller site at land near Severn Trent sewage works.

We would like to lodge an objection to this site being chosen as we do not believe it is a suitable site being adjacent to Chase Meadow Housing estate and Business park.
We have experienced problems in the past with Travellers parking illegally in that area on temporary basis and have had items disappearing from our property during those times which honestly seems too much of a coincidence!

We understand they need to be given a site and appreciate that not all Gypsy/Travellers are a nuisance but they seem to be in the minority! We therefore feel it would be better to be sited outside of the town.

see attached