Dear Sirs,

I have obtained from you and studied extensively the above document and would like to comment as follows:- Government policy is and has been for many years to aim for an integrated and inclusive society. Your document advocates exactly the opposite and if adopted, would lead to isolation and separation of the minority Gypsy and Traveller groups from mainstream society.

First let me comment on the pertinent details of your document:-
- You acknowledge that the numbers that HMG instruct you to accommodate are relatively small - somewhere between 23 and 33 depending on which paragraph on which page you read!
- The document calls for protection of the Green Belt.
- You call for sites that can be integrated into the landscape without
harming the area
- In paragraph 7.3 on page 9 you set out policy criteria on easy
access to schools, doctors, and public transport. Safe roads and provision of utilities, avoidance of flooding and many other
conditions.
- In paragraph 7.4 you talk about "integrated co-existence" and
"sustainability"

I submit that without exception, your chosen sites do not come close to fulfilling any of these requirements for the following reasons:-
- All sites are isolated from existing communities.
- Many are situated on extremely busy - and signed as - dangerous roads.
- All require new and bespoke infrastructures. Would planning
permission be granted and infrastructure provided for small private developments in these locations? No. I didn't think so.
- Isolation can never be sustainable. Integration stands more chance.
- Scattered communities are more difficult and expensive to manage.

Warwick District Council, like all other councils, are now required by HMG to embark on an extensive building and development programmes.
With a bit of lateral thinking and an abandonment of the rote - "we have always done it this way" - approach on development, I believe that Gypsy/Traveller accommodation can and should be incorporated into one or more of the extensive new estates that will need to be built in the near future.
I know you will respond, "but the Developers won't like it", but I remind you that we are not building for the benefit of developers, but for the benefit and stability of the country as a whole.
And there is an upside. This proposal does not affect anyone. If you don't want to live close to Gypsies, don't move on to the new estate.
Give people choices.
In addition, Local Authorities will be under greater scrutiny to ensure that the allocated sites are managed more effectively.

Councillors and Officers, think carefully what you wish for.

I trust you will also think carefully about the above submission.