Regarding the new local plan, there are various concerns I have with the plan itself and with how the plan itself has been presented to the local people of Warwick. My objections and concerns are as follows:

Firstly, as a resident of the Chase Meadow estate since 2005, we already live near a busy motorway junction with the obvious additional through traffic that comes with such nearby infrastructure. Since the initial link road was opened (linking up with the A429) we noticed a growth in traffic along Purser Drive, therefore also impacting upon the junction with Hampton Road. Thus, surely the proposed plan for a travellers' site will impact further on this traffic issue and then with the new link road we will see even more vehicles using these significant roads. As a parent with young children this is obviously a concern - we chose to live away from a main road and don't wish to see our estate roads become busier still. Furthermore, illogically, your own audit on sustainability queried the sense of placing the travellers near these roads with such significant usage already both in terms of how it would affect the families being placed on these proposed sites (who presumably would hope for quieter area suitable for children to be safe) and regarding the already heavy vehicular usage so this begs the question regarding the issue of road safety alone whether the proposed sites are in sensible locations for all concerned parties.

Another concern for me is with the flood plain issue, the proposed travellers' Hampton Road site is partially in the flood plain. Again the logic of this choice stuns me; in this time of increased nationalised flooding we should all be protecting our flood plains and ensuring they are strictly 'off limits' yet the proposed Hampton Road site would allow an area of this land to be changed in order to stand vehicles on for long periods of time - obviously this is going to affect the land's ability to absorb water! Once again this decision would impact upon the local residents of this area and the travellers who would be able to live there. How is an increased risk of flooding fair to the travellers family groups that would utilise this site? In addition to this, as someone who is deeply interested in sustainability of our eco-system, the fact that other sites are near to Green Belt areas worries me. These Green Belt areas are designated for a reason...they should not have building occurring nearby or have regular moving vehicles positioned near either. In my view all kinds of wildlife need to be effectively protected not merely in name only and therefore such proposed sites should not be so close to these areas of Green Belt land. There are other sites that could be chosen that will not negatively impact upon the wildlife that needs careful and watchful protection.

Lastly, it saddens me that this plan has not been effectively proposed or discussed in public. Being committed to local as well as national political discussion is important to ensure a healthy democracy yet it really feels as if the plan has been kept hidden or not discussed as openly as it could have been. In the public meetings held at Aylesford School and Warwick School, many councillors that sat around the table initially sorting out the various aspects of the local plan in its infancy- from road closures to new housing needs and proposed travellers' sites- were not present. Surely this suggests that they did not want to confront the potential concerns/issues that different groups within the Warwick District might need to clarify? Also, the lack of representation by the councillors that put forward the plan itself creates a degree of cynicism regarding the choices made about the proposed new housing and traveller sites. This concerns me and considering the bigger picture, it does not engender a positive co-existence between different community groups which normally I would say is one of the many things I love about living in Warwick (and I have lived in other counties in England where I haven't necessarily felt as harmonised a feeling between local and tourists or within the various communities living within the area itself). Adding to my personal view here, this current discord challenges one of the pre-requisites of just one aspect of the plan - the placing of the Traveller Sites -because in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites it requires that a positive co-existence should be promoted through the proposals and discussion of such sites but this is not necessarily the case currently - this could have been prevented through a more effective presentation of the local plan.