I would like to make the following comments regarding the proposals particularly for the sites around Bishops Tachbrook where I live.


The school at Bishops Tachbrook is already over subscribed where on occasion siblings cannot get into the same school as their elder brother or sisters.

The doctors surgery in the village is already heavily used and I question if they can handle any more patients.

The interviews indicate that the gypsies do not admit they have children as they do not send them to schools so if we offer gypsy children places at school and they do not attend they are denying another child a place.

I question your numbers how can they be 11 in 2008 from a West Midlands assessment, going up to 23 from the regional spatial strategy date unknown then increasing again to 31 in 2012 from the Salford University. Why do you not try one small site and see how it goes.

The government is going by the regional spatial strategy so I question why you spent additional monies on the Salford report.

What consideration has been given to the costs of all the proposed sites usually when you are purchasing something and have options costs is one of the first considerations. What funding do you have for these sites?

The value of our properties would go down as no one wants to live near to a gypsy site. I have heard of the blatant theft of items from the Co op shop on Warwick Gates by gypsies from more than one source.

I do not believe site 10 is suitable as it is so close to the guide dogs breeding ground and gypsy dogs could enter the site and spread disease to the breeding dogs.

Plot 5 is also too close to the dogs also and to the village of Bishops Tachbrook.

My concern is that other areas who have made provision for gypsies have had an increase in the number of gypsies in that area