Map 1

I am writing to raise my formal objection to the proposed development of a permanent traveller site on land adjacent to the Severn Trent site near Jn 15 of the M40.

You, Warwick District Council, had previously undertaken a consultation on possible sites, however at no point during this consultation process was the site on Stratford Road presented as an option.

As elected councillors I would ask that you explain how, after the consultation on proposed sites had closed and the short list of sites is produced, a new, previously unidentified site can be introduced without consultation with the local residents.

This site would have significant detrimental effects on the area, including impacts on property values, amenity and aesthetics as well as potential nuisance factors due to increased traveller numbers in the area. Unofficial temporary traveller encampments have been sited on Tapping Way, Stratford Road and other sites close to this area over the past few years resulting in significant litter and nuisance. Development of a permanent site will only increase these problems.

As elected members your role is to represent the views of the people of Warwick. In proposing this site you are choosing to ignore the overwhelming views of existing residents.

I would ask for acknowledgement that you have received this email and for you to respond to the question of how the site was included in the short list, including evidence that all due process has been followed including appropriate consultation with the residents of Warwick - the people you were elected to represent.

see attached

The proposal to use this site for a gypsy and travellers' site is
particularly surprising as it is in an area that has been considered
not to be suitable for residential use and was not included for
that purpose in any version of the new Local Plan.

Severn Trent has advised on a cordon sanitary around the
sewage works it cannot be at all acceptable to site a place where
people will live so near to a sewage works.
Residents' amenities would certainly be adversely affected by escaping gases from the
sewage works. We know that those malodorous gases are already
experienced by residents living as far away asChase Meadow.
Indeed, it could prove to be intolerable for residents of the
site both within and outside their homes.

Residents of the site would also be subjected to noise from the M40 and
those living in mobile homes with limited noise insulation, would
suffer even more than would residents of conventional housing.

The proximity of the river and the site's location within the flood
plain are persuasive reasons for the development not to be
permitted. We are aware that even if compensatory works could be
carried out it would be poor planning practice to knowingly locate
development in the flood plain even if this land could be
fully protected by remediation measures the flooding would be
displaced elsewhere.

It really is a matter of serious concern that though the land has been
considered to be unsuitable for residential use, the District
Council should propose it for use as a Gypsy and Traveller Site.
Surely, it is not acceptable to expect anybody to reside in an area
which has never been considered suitable for other forms of
residential use.

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.

My objections are:
1) WDC have failed to fulfil their statutory duty to consult neighbouring Local Authorities. I have demonstrated this through Freedom of Information requests to all neighbouring authorities, the results of which have been previously been given to WDC but are reattached to this email
2) There is not a proven need for this site or any other. The GTAA produced by Salford University in 2012 is riddled with errors, inconsistencies and flaws and cannot be considered as safe or sound. I have previously supplied Tracey Darke and Dave Barbour a copy of my analysis of the GTAA which shows all of these problems (this is attached to this email). WDC have not had the GTAA reviewed by an independent external party and so cannot maintain its position that the GTAA is sound
3) The entire process for selecting Gypsy and Traveller sites has been flawed and has demonstrated great inconsistency in the application of NPFF and DCLG requirements and guidelines , it is clear that this is continuing in terms of the criteria applied to the proposed Stratford Road site. The whole process should be re-started and executed correctly

see attached

We would like to express our serious objections to the above proposals.

We have lived on Chase Meadow for a year and chose the location because of
its pleasant location in the County Town. Within a few months of moving in
the gypsies set up camp a few hundred metres down the road from our house.
During the period they were there we were plagued with nuisance and a
feeling of intimidation and encountered heaps of rubbish and human faeces
each time we walked past their camp to get to the Stratford Road. It was
extremely disturbing and disheartening after having just paid in the region
of £450,000 for our home, thinking we were retiring to a nice location. In
view of that experience, we are appalled to learn that the site by the
Sewerage Works has now been added to the list of proposed permanent gypsy
sites, as when we purchased our home it was not a consideration.

I would like to point out a few issues with the proposed site that the Warwick district council are trying to force through at a very late stage to secure more planning permission for houses in the area.

Firstly, the lack of proper consultation for this site.

The original paper work which I picked up from Sainsburys when the council were first putting this out to the public. This was done well, and I thought gave people enough time and information around where the site would be etc. The site now proposed was never included on this original document.

The Strartford Road site is clearly a mistake, anyone driving along this road knows how dangerous the blind corner can be, huge lorries and caravans coming in and out on a regular basis is surely a recipe for disaster. There only has to be 1 crash including a gypsy or traveller and this site will be proved wrong.

The site is also next to the river Avon. Beside the added rubbish and pollution that will be added to the river at this point from the gypsies and travellers. It is a huge health risk. This area is a flood plain and last year you could see from the M40 the amount of fields covered in water. The additional cost to make this a safe for anyone staying there, let alone children and animals surely should be obvious to WDC and a clear warning not to use it.

These are the main points amongst many which should warn WDC away from this site. If you do push on with this, against all the warnings and residence objections WDC will be open to such a vast amount of ridicule it will surely be seen in the next vote.

Other issues with the site would be :

Dangerous as is next to M40
Loud and unbearable as next to M40
Makes the area far less attractive for business to buy up the vast employment land still remaining.
New homes still being developed less attractive for potential buyers.
Living next to waste water facility would be unbearable
Potential danger for wildlife living in the River Avon.

I hope WDC will take these issues into account, along with all the other objections. I already know of 2 rented accommodations, one on The Marish and one on Morecroft Drive that have recently moved not solely to the risk of this site, but was a big influence in their decision making process.

Please can this objection be confirmed via a reply to this email.

We wish to draw your attention to our views on the Proposed Permanent Gypsy
And Traveller Site to be located on the Stratford Road Warwick.

1 Safety.
a) Proximity of the River Avon
b) Proximity of the M40 Motorway/ Stratford Road
c) Flood Plain.

We are aware that the Council have suggested that they will fence off the river and the motorway. It is our experience as senior citizens that we have never seen a fence that has kept children or young adults in or out.
Where will children cross the main busy Stratford Road?

Flood Plains - This area is designated within zones 2 and 3. Having read the Governments Guidelines on Planning a Permanent Gypsy and Travellers Site it states that they should not be situated where there is a high risk of flooding (zones 3 area).

2 Health.

Severn Trent Sewage Farm is very close to the proposed area
This does not seem like a good site to house children and young adults.
There is often a nauseous odour from these works, particularly in
Warm weather.


3 Access
a) There has to be more than one suitable access route to allow not only
The dwellers themselves but also Emergency Vehicles and general
Service Vehicles that need frequent safe access to the site.
b) The road has to be at least two vehicles wide (minimum 5.5 metres)
Enabling two vehicles to pass, this would prevent blocking the road.
The road leading down to Longbridge Manor is frequently used to park
Vehicles whilst attending conferences.
House Owners in that road also park their vehicles there.
c) Some dwellers use horses to tow caravans, these will need grazing land
d) How much land will they require for this purpose?

4. Finance?

Where will the money come from to fund all of this?
New roads, landscaping, latrine/shower blocks, fences
Flood defences, clean air.
Extra school places, doctor's services (already stretched)
Will this money come out of our council taxes, or will the
Cost be met by the Government?





Stratford Road was never part of the original plan when the Council were
Looking for a Permanent Gypsy and Travellers Sites.

We feel very strongly that this site is unsuitable for the purpose
Intended and have listed our reasons why.

I don't know if this is the right place to contact but the gypsies that have settled on a small park on Woodloes Park are extremely intimidating. I've seen police talking to them and was told they were supposed to leave but they are still present two days later. There seem to be a lot of them considering it's such a small park.
They are loud at ridiculous times in the morning and have been tampering with people's electrical boxes late at night, it's starting to scare people.

Is there any advice you can give me or is anything being done to move these gypsies on?

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.

Objection to the proposed Stratford Road Gypsy & Traveller site

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on the Stratford Road. The proposal is fundamentally flawed in many respects, leading to my objection on planning grounds, but I also object on the basis that the council's own consultation process has been fundamentally flawed, and thirdly that WDC should be looking after the interests of the vast majority of Warwick residents, rather than risk the peace and livelihood of many for the sake of a few.

Objections on planning grounds:
1. The access road is totally unsuitable:
a. It is on a dangerous bend
b. It is already subject to known (to police etc) congestion regards parked cars, meaning emergency vehicles, lorries, vehicles towing caravans, etc will struggle to access any site
c. The access road uses part of a national cycle route, and the increase volume and size of traffic on this route will seriously affect the safety of people using this cycle route.
d. The access road is not suitable for Lorries, or any towing vehicles
e. The farm track that is the proposed access route is not only too small (going by the government guide lines) but also privately owned. No council representative has spoken to the landowner about using this road, so this site fails the test of being available and deliverable
f. Currently several lorries end up reversing out on to the A429 as lorries have no space to turn. This is very dangerous, and will lead to increased accidents on an already dangerous bend.
g. The track would have to be widened to meet government stipulations, and this would mean the removal of around 50 mature trees
h. There has been no evidence of any provision for expenditure to make up the track to a suitable condition
2. The site itself has been announced as being available, and yet the councils statement that the land is owned by Severn Trent, a farmer, and the council, all of whom are willing to sell for gypsy use, is untrue, as neither the farmer or Severn Trent wish for the land to be used for gypsies, and both state the council approached them regarding employment land only. This shows that the council have been willing to lie to the tax-paying public about this matter.
3. The site fails the government guidelines:
a. Being bordered by a Motorway, river, busy road, and sewage works, this site clearly fails on safety and environmental health grounds
b. The land is deemed flood plain and of the highest risk of flooding. While the flood risk can be reduced with engineering works, these cost money which has not been identified in the plan
4. While the site is being proposed on the grounds of access to roads and footpath access, and access to schools and doctors in the close locality, the councils advocation of the Harbury Lane site show these are not essential in considering a site, so cannot be relied upon as reason to promote this site.
5. While noise reports have been commissioned, these are (as acknowledged by the author) of limited value, as the normal criteria were not met when carrying out the tests.
6. There are plenty of other sites within the WDC area that are better suited to be used that this site, but which WDC appears to have discounted, so this site should also be discounted.
7. It has been stated in writing that should this plan be approved, the site will be for the exclusive use of gypsies and travellers. This is a blatantly racist stance by the council, and one that will create a large ghetto on the outskirts of the town, past which most tourists will drive. This will adversely affect the abilities of the communities to integrate and live harmoniously when that would be essential with a site so close to the centre of Warwick. Currently it is believed that some gypsy families live on Chase Meadow, and this has not caused noticeable problems, as they live in houses, and in small numbers so integrate with the other residents. This would not happen with the WDC proposal for a gypsy ghetto, which is for the maximum number of gypsy families as allowed under government rules
8. There is no provision to ensure that the gypsy site does not expand onto the surrounding fields / residential properties through illegal means as has happened at other sites.

Objections to the Council process:
1 This has been stated as a consultation process, but the impression given is that this has already been decided by council bureaucrats without any consideration to the residents of Warwick who will be adversely affected by this proposal.
2 The Mayor of Warwick has been known to speak of it being "inevitable" that the gypsy site would be sited on the Stratford Road site even before the consultation started, giving rise to concerns about deals being done outside of the proper processes.
3 The council had researched the site so little before proposing it that they did not even realize that people lived in houses down the lane proposed for access, or who owned the lane over which access was proposed.
4 The site itself has been announced as being available, and yet the councils statement that the land is owned by Severn Trent, a farmer, and the council, all of whom are willing to sell for gypsy use, is untrue, as neither the farmer or Severn Trent wish for the land to be used for gypsies, and both state the council approached them regarding employment land only. This shows that the council have been willing to lie to the tax-paying public about this matter.
5 WDC last year published a list of over 20 sites for consideration, but this site was not amongst those. For it now to be included as one of the final 3 prteferred site, without proper consideration is outrageous.
6 No council representatives attended the public meeting at Aylesford school to support the proposals and advise / discuss with concerned residents - hense the fact that the meeting was unanimous in its opposition to the plans, and the commonly held opinion at that meeting was that the council had no interest in what the residents thought, and the term 'consultation' was a joke.
7 The drop in sessions arranged for Chase Meadow were poorly publicized and only open till 6.30pm, meaning most local residents could not attend. Those who did witnessed an astonishing lack of awareness by those meant to be giving clear and concise responses, and in some cases blatantly incorrect mis-information was being given out.
8 While certain individuals have been warned that protesting against the gypsy site is bordering on racism, the fact that it has been stated in writing that should this plan be approved, the site will be for the exclusive use of gypsies and traveller is a blatantly racist stance by the council, and one that will create a ghetto on the outskirts of the town, past which most tourists and visitors will drive
9 Despite receiving a petition of around 800 signatures asking the council not to proceed with considering this site, the council has still done so, causing worry and concern to many of the tax-paying residents in the area, and a feeling that their views are being ignored.
10 By proposing such an unsuitable site in close proximity to so many residential properties, many, many residents have spent many days worrying about the problems this will cause, and has caused many to have to spend many hours of their time researching the situation, wasting a lot of time, and this showing that the councils proposals are fundamentally flawed, and as they are detrimental to so many tax paying residents, has totally undermined the credibility of WDC in the eyes of many of the affected residents
11 While much of the justification of this site has been that the council need to get the local plan approved, so need to identify gypsy sites, to do so will adversely affect life in Warwick far more than if the plan is not approved by central government. It will blight the lives of thousands of tax-paying residents, and where Tournament Fields is already proving difficult to sell employment space on, this will only get worse if gypsies are sited just a few hundred yards away - meaning Warwick will lose out on valuable jobs and investment, in a part of Warwick seen by the vast majority of visitors to the town.
12 WDC has made the process difficult for people to object, asking people to read pages of council literature on how to object, asking people to download forms that try to steer people into specific areas of response, and making the process more complicated that it needs, in general.




Objections on the moral ground:
1 Warwick District Council has an obligation to look after the interest of the tax paying residents it represents, and there is no way this proposal is in the residents interests, or that of the town as a whole
2 To propose such a site on the main route into Warwick for most visitors and tourists defies all logic
3 To date the only arguments for this site indicate that WDC has backed itself into a corner on this issue, and is now clutching at straws in identifying a potential site, with the main criteria being that WDC believe this land to be available - ie no other land is available, so it has to be here - this totally undermines the whole process as it means WDC effectively saying that if a site is potentially available, it is therefore more suitable than one that might be ideal, but that is not available. As the majority of land in Warwick is privately owned and thus unavailable, this makes WDC look like idiots.
4 While we are told that complaining about increased crime etc is not a valid reason to object, there is well documented (examples have already been supplied by other objectors) evidence that gypsy communities cause trouble for the existing populations and for WDC to risk such a thing on the main route into Warwick is reckless beyond the acceptable.
5 To announce such a site is being considered, without having first assessed it properly again shows a reckless disregard for the welfare of tax-paying residents of Warwick
6 While everyone acknowledges the need for WDC to identify sites for gypsies, WDC seems to be alone in thinking this is a good suggestion, and many more of the original sites now discounted, were far more suitable than this one, with many residents believing that two on the A46 bypass being the most suitable as least disruptive to the lives of existing Warwick residents - if WDC is determined to construct a racial ghetto, it should have the least impact on the remaining integrated society as possible.

As the proposed site can be shown to be unsuitable, and the council process can be shown to be flawed, this site should immediately be discounted from the list for consideration, allowing people to concentrate on their peaceful lives and businesses again, rather than worrying about this ridiculous proposal.

Thank you for consulting Rugby Borough Council on your Publication Local Plan - Focused Consultation

Rugby Borough Council officers have no comment to make on the above consultation other than to say will continue to work with officers at Warwick District Council in fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate on the production of sub regional evidence including the joint Green Belt Review and any other relevant strategic issues through the plan making process.

This plan seems to have been rushed in during the holiday period to escape attention. The site will attract disfavour from Stratford Road, Chase Meadows and Forbes Estate. Gypsy sites it has to be conceded lead to mess and anti-social behavior, as e.g. at Harbury in the past. I register objection

see attached

I write to strongly oppose the decision to now include Stratford Rd as a possible location for a Gypsy and traveller site.

I moved to Stratford Road in Warwick as I would regard it as one of the "premier roads" to live on in Warwick.

After speaking to a many residents and neighbours I was surprised to hear that the potential site selected was at the end of the Stratford Road. I can also add that I was surprised that it was a recent addition to the long list of potential sites selected

I oppose the site for the following reasons

* Also surely one of the criteria that the gypsy community desire is a place where people would live i.e. not under a railway bridge, not next to a busy motorway or not next to a sewage works like the Stratford Road Site.
* This area has a high flood risk
* There is poor access to the site - Seven Trent will not be allowing access across their land
* As a payer of Council Tax like the many resident on Stratford Road, we should have been consulted long before the site was added to the list, surely surveys and consultation were taken long before the site was added. Full consultation and consideration period were given to the other sites.
* Being so close to a new housing estate Chase Meadow and Beaumont Meadow, potential new residents would be put off the idea of living there, creating less potential sales.
* We pay a large amount of council tax to fund WDC and we are always informed on how governments cuts need to be made to cover other services, surely this site would impact this limited budget as amenities need to be installed etc and the general up keep of the site would be significant.
* The Stratford Road is one of the major roads that lead into Warwick and I am surprised that WDC would not think a site would impact on the "first impression" that tourist have and potential businesses relocating to Warwick.
* Warwick has seen a steady decline of local shops unfortunately closing down but recently local restaurants such as Micatto and shops such as Hatton and Harding have help create a town where people have the desire to be and want to live and shop, a traveller community would not benefit and promote Warwick to more new business.
* The site is by a premium business park, several pubs and hotels (Holiday Inn and Hilton). The presence of a gypsy community would impact this a great deal. I have had first hand experience of the gypsy community whilst living in Oxford, several venues became off limits to the public and roads had to be closed and extra police were required for certain gypsy events.
* Without stereotyping the gypsy community residents will surely fear an increase in crime rate, insurance increases, house prices falling. The area will become an area where there will be houses that people cant sell and people not wanting to buy them. This devaluation of property prices could surely lead to a council tax review as the houses are worth less therefore WDC receiving less council tax this would also leave alot of residents in negative equity.
* Being a dog owner I know that the potential diseases from other dogs that have not been vaccinated is a great threat and would worry of possibility of my dog being stolen.


I would like to be kept fully informed on the activity surrounding this application and the process involved in any decision making.

> I am writing to object to plans to site a permanent gypsy traveller site on the Stratford Road. I do not feel this is an appropriate place. This is a key approach route to Warwick (the way the vast majority of people approach the castle) and I think this will affect the perception of people entering the town to see a permanent travellers site here.
> Presumably as these are intended as permanent pitches the intention is that the children will attend local schools? Newburgh? this is already oversubscribed.
>
> I also don't understand why the government sees the need to provide pitches for travellers. We own a caravan and don't feel the urge to leave it on grass verges and public land. We pay for campsites in approved and designated places. Travellers should be encouraged to do the same.
>
> Perhaps land could be found adjacent to the Ufton Landfill site instead. This may perhaps make their work easier as the often find employment through removing rubbish/scrap goods.
>
> I strongly feel that this is an inappropriate place for this site and object to this proposal.

I wish to lodge my objections to the above scheme on the following basis:

A429 and access to the site - the A429 is already a congested route with a heavy build of traffic at peak times and on occasions when there are events being held at Warwick Castle or traffic problems on the M40, with many drivers using the A429 as an alternative route when the motorway is closed or restricted. By siting the proposed site off the Stratford Road will only add to the problems, particularly when travelers are trying to gain access to the site with towed caravans and other equipment. The site access would seem to be a single track road which would seem unsuitable for flow of traffic - you could end up with queues extending out onto the A429 when vehicles are trying to gain access to the site. There would also be a problem of emergency vehicles trying to gain access to the site. Surely one of the requirements of creating a site would be for suitable access points, preferable at least two, and the proposed site would not seem to offer this facility.

Flood plain for River Avon - this area of land is a recognized flood plain for the River Avon and therefore there is always a risk that in a climate where we are seeing increased rainfall this will flood. This would seem to negate this site as being suitable for building on. We are constantly seeing headlines in the press where properties built on flood plains are being damaged and therefore this could place the Council in a position of periodically having to reinstate the site and cause Warwick residents to be liable for additional costs in a time where Councils are facing cuts to their budgets.

Air quality and noise pollution - the proposed site is next to a sewage works owned by Severn Trent and adjacent to the M40 motorway. It can hardly be considered a suitable environment to expect people to live next to where they could be exposed to poor environmental living conditions.

Tournment Fields - this business hub was created in order to attract businesses to the area, and whilst there has been some success in doing so, the site still remains under-occupied, and I doubt whether the location of a gypsy and traveler site will encourage potential businesses to move to the area.

I hope you will take my comments into consideration when reviewing the proposals.

> I am writing to object to plans to site a permanent gypsy traveller site on the Stratford Road. I do not feel this is an appropriate place. This is a key approach route to Warwick (the way the vast majority of people approach the castle) and I think this will affect the perception of people entering the town to see a permanent travellers site here.
> Presumably as these are intended as permanent pitches the intention is that the children will attend local schools? Newburgh? this is already oversubscribed.
>
> I also don't understand why the government sees the need to provide pitches for travellers. We own a caravan and don't feel the urge to leave it on grass verges and public land. We pay for campsites in approved and designated places. Travellers should be encouraged to do the same.
>
> Perhaps land could be found adjacent to the Ufton Landfill site instead. This may perhaps make their work easier as the often find employment through removing rubbish/scrap goods.
>
> I strongly feel that this is an inappropriate place for this site and object to this proposal.

I write to strongly oppose the decision to now include Stratford Rd as a possible location for a Gypsy and traveller site.

I moved to Stratford Road in Warwick as I would regard it as one on the "premier roads" to live on in Warwick.

After speaking to a many residents and neighbours I was surprised to hear that the potential site selected was at the end of the Stratford Road. I can also add that I was surprised that it was a recent addition to the long list of potential sites selected

I oppose the site for the following reasons

* Also surely one of the criteria that the gypsy community desire is a place where people would live ie not under a railway bridge, not next to a busy motorway or not next to a sewage works like the Stratford Road Site.
* This area has a high flood risk
* There is poor access to the site - Seven Trent will not be allowing access across their land
* As a payer of Council Tax like the many resident on Stratford Road, we should of been consulted long before the site was added to the list, surely surveys and consultation were taken long before the site was added. Full consultation and consideration period were given to the other sites.
* Being so close to a new housing estate Chase Meadow and Beaumont Meadow, potential new residents would be put off the idea of living there, creating less potential sales.
* We pay a large amount of council tax to fund WDC and we are always informed on how governments cuts need to be made to cover other services, surely this site would impact this limited budget as amenities need to be installed etc and the general up keep of the site would be significant.
* The Stratford Road is one of the major roads that lead into Warwick and I am surprised that WDC would not think a site would impact on the "first impression" that tourist have and potential businesses relocating to Warwick.
* Warwick has seen a steady decline of local shops unfortunately closing down but recently local restaurants such as Micatto and shops such as Hatton and Harding have help create a town where people have the desire to be and want to live and shop, a traveller community would not benefit and promote Warwick to more new business.
* The site is by a premium business park, several pubs and hotels (Holiday Inn and Hilton). The presence of a gypsy community would impact this a great deal. I have had first hand experience of the gypsy community whilst living in Oxford, several venues became off limits to the public and roads had to be closed and extra police were required for certain gypsy events.
* Without stereotyping the gypsy community residents will surely fear an increase in crime rate, insurance increases, house prices falling. The area will become an area where there will be houses that people cant sell and people not wanting to buy them. This devaluation of property prices could surely lead to a council tax review as the houses are worth less therefore WDC receiving less council tax this would also leave alot of residents in negative equity.
* Being a dog owner I know that the potential diseases from other dogs that have not been vaccinated is a great threat and would worry of possibility of my dog being stolen.


I would like to be kept fully informed on the activity surrounding this application and the process involved in any decision making.

I feel I must object most strongly to the above proposed gypsy/traveller site.

The site is most inappropriate with its close proximity to local houses and the Severn Trent sewerage plant. This plant always has an aroma to it, even in the depths of winter - who would want to live next door to that!

There is a ready made caravan site just out of Warwick on the Banbury Road which has now been developed, but not used, for the past 3 or 4 years. This would be a much better site for both the travellers and the people of Warwick and also those visiting the town/castle.

I wish to register my opposition to the Gipsy site adjacent to Stratford road. it should not be so close to the town centre, because of the detriment of the appearance of the town. also it would not be right for the gypsies to be living next to the sewage works which smell from time to time. the effect on traffic would cause hold ups, as the road already suffers congestion with traffic going through the town and taking children to school.The building on the opposite side of the road is not yet finished so the amount of additional traffic is not yet known.

I am writing to record my objection to the proposal to site a traveller & gypsy site on land adjacent to Severn Trent on the Stratford Road in Warwick. I cannot believe that such a plan is being considered given the location, with a secondary school adjacent and the Warwick Gates housing development nearby.

This area has been subject to unauthorised traveller encampments in recent history; during which time the area was a virtual no go zone and very intimidating to pass by. Once the travellers were moved on, the rubbish and waste left behind was a total disgrace.

I find the proposal of any site in or around Warwick district inflammatory; using tax payers hard earned money to provide facilities for persons who contribute nothing to the economy and leave a trail of disruption anywhere they go when services for the very population who pay taxes are being cut drastically.

I am writing to record my objection to the proposal to site a traveller & gypsy site on land adjacent to Severn Trent on the Stratford Road in Warwick. I cannot believe that such a plan is being considered given the location, with a secondary school adjacent and the Warwick Gates housing development nearby.

This area has been subject to unauthorised traveller encampments in recent history; during which time the area was a virtual no go zone and very intimidating to pass by. Once the travellers were moved on, the rubbish and waste left behind was a total disgrace.

I find the proposal of any site in or around Warwick district inflammatory; using tax payers hard earned money to provide facilities for persons who contribute nothing to the economy and leave a trail of disruption anywhere they go when services for the very population who pay taxes are being cut drastically.

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 am writing with regards the Proposed Gypsy and Traveller site adjacent to the Stratford Rd Warwick. I find it difficult to comprehend how such a proposal is not laughed out of existence due to the environment you are dealing with.

Chase Meadow (which I'm assuming you realise) is located next to the proposed site is a developing suburb which is a pleasant and safe environment which attracts a large number of young families who are drawn to the area due to the benefits of living in such a safe environment. To suggest a gypsy site could exist in such close proximity to an area such as Chase Meadow without a mass exodus of the local residents is mind blowing in its absurdity. Aylesford & Newburgh school are expanding and investing in the future to sustain the interest from the ever expanding Chase Meadow allowing an even more attractive area for young families to reside. Surely these schools would suffer a dramatic downturn in interest if these were located next to such a site, not to mention the young families moving away from the area to avoid living near the proposed site would reduce the numbers of children falling into the catchment area.

Month after month new houses and streets are being developed by the major homebuilding companies which in turn are being filled with the type of residents named above, how is this development supposed to continue if the whole area is ruined with such a ridiculous proposal. I know from casual conversations I have had recently that a very large number of residents will be looking to leave the area if such a proposal goes ahead. This would be a disaster for such an up and coming area in Warwick and I'm convinced that the fall out and knock on effect would be felt from years to come.

We (my husband & I) wish to submit a strong objection to the proposed gypsy and traveller site on the Stratford Road.

Before we go straight into the reasons of our objections, we would like to stress how disappointed and shocked we are about the apparent lack of due process in the proposal of this site for a permanent G&T site. As local residents, we have been following the progression of the Local Plan proposals, including the positioning of the G&T sites. Stratford Road did not appear in the original list of possible sites, neither was it considered at the shortlisting stage. So, how can it suddenly appear as the site giving the majority provision for the G&T sites allocation? This is not a clear, robust and transparent process.

Furthermore, the situation has been worsened by the lack of clear information available in this consultation period. The information on the website is unclear, patchy and sometimes very misleading. The information given at the consultation surgeries has not been much better and in many situations contradicting some of the published documentation.

The key factors which we form the bases of our strong objection to the proposed Stratford Road site are:

Unsuitability of the location (in terms of Air, Water & Soil Quality) -The site is next to a major sewerage works which can be smelt from our house on chase meadows, less than a mile away. What will this smell be like much closer and what kind of message does placement next to sewage send to the gypsy and traveller community? On the other side of the proposed site is the busy and noisy M40 motorway, the impact of which was not fully evaluated by WDC in their limited assessment of noise, under fine weather conditions. The sustainability assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red). Surely this alone, makes this not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

Flood risk - This proposed site includes areas classified as flood zone 2 & 3a, in the G&T sites good practice guidance, it states "that caravan sites for permanent residence are considered 'high vulnerable' and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (zone 3 areas)". So selecting this site clearly goes against this guidance. We appreciate there has been suggestions of flood alleviate, but we haven't seen any specific evidence that the flood risk can be eliminated or the cost involved to migrate the flood risk.

Availability of Land - having seen correspondence from Severn Trent directly, they appear to be unaware of WDC intentions of using this land as a G&T site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial use. They are also objecting to this proposed G&T site. Whereas WDC has suggested through this consultation that all land owners (including Severn Trent) were supportive of this process and were making their land available. This backs up my point about WDC information being unclear and misleading.

Access to the land - the access road to the proposed G&T site is a narrow farm track which in its current state would not be suitable for the number of vehicles, including caravans/mobile homes to use. Furthermore accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to be next to a grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which itself is located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorist. The Government's own guidelines on planning G&T sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particular for Emergency Vehicles. Therefore in short, there are lot of issues around making this an easy and safe access to this proposed G&T site, which have not simply been addressed.

Effect on the local economy - the sustainability assessment on this section has been graded as "?" and supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the consultation document makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all. Given that tournament fields business park remains largely undeveloped after the 6 years we have been living on this site and the likely negative effect on future demand if a G&T site is opened opposite, this clearly suggests to us that WDC is trying to avoid the whole issues of the negative effect on the local economy that this proposed site could have?

We conclude that the proposed site is not suitable for the intended use and therefore should not be taken forward as a preferred site. Whilst acknowledging that the WDC does has a statutory obligation to provide sufficient permanent & temporary pitches to meet the accommodation needs of G&T population within its area, this no way justifies the selection of a site that is clearly completely unsuitable across a wide range of specific criteria as set above here and also in the response submitted by the Chase Meadows Resident Association (CMRA), which we also fully endorse and support the contents.

It was brought to my attention that there is a proposal for a gypsy and traveller site adjacent to the Stratford road, Warwick. As a resident and owner of a house in the Chase Meadow development, I strongly oppose the move as this will significantly worsen the natural beauty and make the place crowded. I believe this is a close knitted residential communtiy and a traveller site would affect the privacy of the families living here.
Hope some action is taken against the move. Should you require any further information, kindly get in touch with me

I wish to express concern about the suitability of the proposed Travellers site on the Stratford Road Warwick, alongside the Severn Trent site down to the M40.

I am in favour of providing permanent spaces for gypsies and travellers to use, and I submitted a response to the last consultation to say that I supported the use of the site near the racecourse.

I am aware that many others would object to any sites near them. I don't wish to be associated with a NIMBY mentality so I am not joining in with any collective objection. This is an individual submission.

My concern with the Severn Trent land is twofold:

Firstly, I thought it was an area allowed to flood: it soaks up the water in the area and keeps Chase Meadow from flooding. I may be wrong but this would need to be carefully checked. It wouldn't be ethical to offer people an area with a high flood risk, with the potential dangers to health, safety and property.

Secondly, I am concerned about whether it is habitable. I live nearby and it is noticeable sometimes that there is a strong smell of sewage coming from the Severn Trent land. I am not complaining: water treatment has to happen somewhere! But I know that the smell is far stronger close to the site and I suspect there is a frequent problem with air quality. I am surprised to even see it approved for employment purposes, though within an air conditioned building I suppose the effect would be managed. However, caravans don't offer the same luxury. I would find it unpleasant to live there, I would worry about the hygiene, I would certainly worry about my children breathing that air.

Please would you ensure that a full environmental health assessment is carried out to check the impact on people who might be living on that potential site. In that assessment it should include the psychological effects of a sewage smell: it's not something I would wish people to have to endure.

We would like to register our objection to the proposed plans for a gypsy and traveller site at the location under discussion.

Having read the document produced by the Chase Meadow Residents' Association, not to mention just considering the viability of the proposed location from a common sense point of view, I find it inconceivable that any rigorous evaluation of the consequences has concluded that this is a viable location for the site. There is not point in repeating these compelling arguments here.

While acknowledging the need to provide such facilities, there must be alternative locations which would be far more appropriate for all the reasons discussed it the above mentioned document. We therefore urge you to reconsider locating the site in the proposed location.

see attached