I am Mr R Telford of 329 Birmingham Road, Budbrooke, Warwick. My house is immediately adjacent to Oaklands Farm Kennels and is bounded on two sides by the field owned by Mr Butler of Oaklands Farm. At the nearest point his buildings and infrastructure are only (approx) 75 yards from my property.

As you will readily appreciate, being in such proximity to Oaklands Farm the prospect of it becoming a permanent Gypsy site, given the propensity of the Gypsy folk for spreading out beyond the bounds of any original agreement - in this case most probably into the field around my home, causes me some considerable concern.

It would be disingenuous of me to pretend that my anxieties are not fuelled, in large part, by the prospect of such a site negatively impacting on the value of my home, a value incidentally which is critical for my pension and retirement provision, but, whilst this is a major factor for me, I am realistic enough to know that the planners will not be concerned about this!

However, there are other good reasons why Oaklands Farm should not be viewed as a potential site.

1. Chief among these is the issue of access from the Birmingham Road (A4177) The stretch from my house to the Shell Garage just past Oaklands Farm is a notoriously difficult and dangerous stretch of road to pull off and pull onto. Despite the 40mph limit it is not at all unusual for vehicles to be driven along it at speeds considerably in excess of 40mph. The road bends significantly from my house to the garage making visibility for people joining the road from the houses or from Oaklands very much a matter of just waiting for an apparent gap in the traffic and then 'taking your life in your hands' and going for it!

That this is not an exageration can be easily verified - an observer only needs to station him or herself on my drive or on the roadside by Oaklands Farm for 30 minutes at pretty well any time of day to see that it is so.

Several times over the years Mr Butler has been refused permission for various schemes for exactly that reason. Any suggestion that the establishment of a a permanent Gypsy site would not increase the risk to road users and site dwellers would be naive.

2. The A4177 is one of the major access roads for the town of Warwick. I doubt that the establishment of any permanent Gypsy site in the whole country has had the effect of 'beautifying' the locale in which it is placed and I think it very unlikely that the placement of such a site on Oaklands Farm will present an attractive view to visitors as they approach our town. I'm not sure that driving past such a site will project the positive image which traders, business persons and, presumably the council would like to project.

3. The policy criteria for selecting sites requires that consideration be given to any "adverse impact on important features of the natural and historic environment" I would have thought that the Grand Union Canal stretch incorporating the recently upgraded towpath and the famous Hatton Flight of locks would be an "important feature of the natural environment" The canal is popular with walkers, family groups, canal cruisers and anglers. Visitors come from far afield to view the famous flight of locks. There is direct access onto the canal bank in at least two places from Oaklands Farm. There will almost certainly, given the travellers 'track record' in other places, be some 'leakage' of their property, their noise and their waste onto the canal bank or close enough to it to render the towpath less attractive. Not to mention the anxiety caused to walkers by the proximity of several noisy dogs which are bound to be present on the site.

I hope that my views will be noted. I will be attending the various meetings and exhibitions scheduled at Bishops Tachbrook, Hatton Village Hall and the Hampton Magma Community Centre where I will be happy to explain my thoughts firmly and courteously face to face with a councillor if given the opportunity to do so.

I do, despite my anxieties in this instance, have more than a little sympathy for those who are charged with providing a suitable facility and who, on the one hand have a legal responsibility to discharge and on the other a concerned populace to convince, find themselves between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place' However, such an unenviable position rather goes with the territitory I guess!