Preferred Options for Sites

Which site are you responding to? GT04

(e.g. GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way)


What is the nature of your representation? Object

Please set out full details of your objection or representation of support with reference to the criteria above.
Apart from the obvious objections of the actual proximity of the proposed site to a very busy road and main thoroughfare junction and the obvious dangers to children having to be transported to local schools which are already at maximum capacity, according the Government's planning policy framework, adjacent DSs are required to collaborate, and yet WDC and Stratford DC are very much out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate. There is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported "10 minute long un-minuted meeting". Additionally there does not appear to have been any consultation with Rugby DC.
There is also no evidence that WDC have considered the cost of compulsory purchase vs development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the council already won.
The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy and Traveller sites. GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life e.g. proximity to shops, schools, doctors, accessibility to public transport.

The area is prone to flooding with Harbury Lane and surrounding fields often under water. In accordance with planning and building regulations GT04 would be unable to use soak away or runoff based drainage systems since the soil is clay based and will require connection to mains sewerage which does not exist. The close proximity to Harbury Lane Breakers Yard and Barnwell Chicken Farm should be additional cause for concern on the basis of environmental and possible health issues. NPFF states that assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. I understand that WDC have rejected other planning applications within 200m of GT04 due to rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.



Which site are you responding to? GT04

(e.g. GT04 Land at Harbury Lane/Fosse Way)


What is the nature of your representation? Object

Please set out full details of your objection or representation of support with reference to the criteria above.
I would like to place on record my objections to the proposed site for several reasons:-
Local amenities are not sufficient for this added development. The local doctor's surgery is over 3 miles away and is already at capacity as are the local schools. GT04 is located on Harbury Lane and Fosse Way cross roads which is a road with a history of multiple accidents and heavy volumes of traffic - signs indicate this fact. Children will be at risk due to having to travel to schools and therefore having to stand at the side of a busy road awaiting transport, if this transport is actually available.
Environmental concerns should be highlighted due to the close proximity to Barnwell Chicken farm and was a primary reason that the potential G&T site at Barnwell farm was previously rejected. The added proximity of the Harbury Lane Breakers yard should be an additional concern due to the noise and pollution concerns.
The NPFF requires that the assessment of site suitability should be consistent with other planning requests. I understand that other residential planning applications within 200m of GT04 have recently been rejected by council planning authorities, referencing rural policy on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.
The cost to create 5 - 10 permanent pitches ranges between £352K and £650K, using government figures (£65K per pitch). Additionally, the Football club would have to be resited. Due to the recent history of Government and Local Council cuts I do not believe there is any evidence that this can be achieved. From visiting a recent meeting in Harbury Village hall I believe that the Travellers would be purchasing this site (information given by one of your representatives), why therefore should these funds be used for the development of the site.
The site could be considered to have a detrimental impact on tourism due to its close proximity to what is probably one of the only decent hotels in the town. Also, the views from local landmarks/tourist attractions, would be impaired.
There seem to be inconsistencies in the way that the consultation has been carried out by WDC e.g. WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need, however there is no evidence that WDC's due diligence in validating the accuracy of the report and/or the relevance of the established need.