I write to lodge an objection in the most vigorous terms to any proposal to place a gypsy and traveller site within the environs of Baginton Village, Warwickshire.


But first, having had access to the booklet produced about the Local Plan by Warwick District Council, dated June 2013, I feel I must comment concerning the portrayal of gypsy and traveller sites within the booklet, in particular the photographs included. I have personally been onto several gypsy and traveller sites, both private and local authority, both legal and illegal, and have seen many others through TV and other media. I have NEVER seen one even vaguely similar to the photographs within your booklet - there are no dogs, no gas canisters, no children, no vehicles, no toilet blocks or other facilities, no pushchairs, no bikes, no rubbish disposal facility - indeed no rubbish - the grass is tended, there is no tarmac and no sign of how the gypsies/travellers earn their living.

To me, this calls into question the integrity of Warwick District Council and the whole project, there clearly is NOT a policy of HONESTY in dealing with or promoting these uncomfortable issues. Of course, if you can tell me at what gypsy and traveller site the photographs were taken and when, I would have an opportunity of viewing this exemplary site myself and might well have to apologise for stating that I doubt the integrity of the project. I very much doubt that will occur, but would be interested in the comments of the producers of the booklet.



Back to my objections:


Baginton is a small semi rural village, sitting on the Warwickshire/West Midlands border which already this year has been bombarded with the Gateway planning scheme which was approved despite the numerous objections and concerns of villagers. This is far too much development in a short period of time for a small community.


The map showing the area proposed is many acres - is this the reality of what is proposed or another inaccuracy? Presuming it is accurate, then the size will result in is becoming a dominant feature within the village, vastly increasing the size of the village population with no corresponding increased supply of amenities or funding.


It would heavily affect several businesses in the village - in particular the village pubs which due to the proximity of at least one of them to the site would run the risk of becoming the 'local' of the gypsies/travellers - I'm very afraid that however it was packaged it would result in the villagers being uncomfortable in the pub and ultimately reducing their use of it.


The schools within the catchment area for Baginton children are already over subscribed and local children often unable to attend the school of their first choice. It would be wholly inappropriate and unfair to allocate a number of places to children of travellers who may or may not be present to attend the school, when there are local full time residents who require those permanent places.


There is believed to be a link between crime and gypsy & traveller sites - which would adversely affect the local community, but even more the perception of crime due to the site will drive down the value and desirability of property in the area - something which is already affected by the aforementioned Gateway scheme.


To place this type of scheme within the heart of a small community will result in seriously strained community relations - gypsies and travellers are notorious for their lack of engagement outside of their own community and there is no reason to expect this to change - and the quality of life for both residents at the proposed site and the current village inhabitants will be seriously detrimentally affected.


Finally, it is apparent from the map of the whole county that the majority of the proposed sites are at the far reaches of the county - and it is clear that other counties agree with this strategy (ie Siskin Drive traveller site is on the West Midlands/ Warwickshire border) so anywhere on the edge of a county is disproportionally disadvantaged in this issue. Is there a reason for this strategy? Surely sites should be spread equally around the counties - and hence the country - taking into account the location of neighbouring counties' sites rather than clustering them on the edges of the county - very close to the ones on the neighbouring county. Siskin Drive traveller site (owned by West Midlands) is within two miles of Baginton village - which means we are already affected to a certain extent by a gypsy/traveller community - surely a more equal geographic spread would benefit the gypsy/ traveller community, which is after all, the community you are seeking to support in this plan. A site NOT within two miles of an existing site (regardless of the owning district council) would be far more appropriate.