To whom it may concern.

We refer to the sites that WDC have identified as potential sites that could be used to make permanent accommodation for Gypsies & Travellers. We specifically refer to site 20 identified as being on either side of the B 4465 Hampton Rd. in Sherbourne Parish.

Firstly we would dispute that there is a need for permanent sites. The word "traveller" implies that this community is of an itinerate nature and not of a fixed abode.

Eric Pickles the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made the following statement to the media on or about the 4th July this year. "There must be overriding and compelling reasons to put traveller sites on the Green Belt"

What compelling reasons are there to accommodate travellers on food producing land within the Green Belt in Sherbourne Parish?

Less than 2 1/2 miles by road, a site has been identified and planning permission granted for a Gypsy/Traveller site by Stratford District Council. We refer to the site on Warwick Road, Black Hill Stratford, adjacent to Stratford Garden Centre. So the need has already been addressed in the Sherbourne area.

Should you be minded to ignore Mr Pickles statement you should consider the following:

Already Traveller sites are being introduced into the equation when properties are being sold in this area. Negatively impacting on vendors selling prices. Compensation to local residents may have to be considered.

From personal experience our son and daughter in law who between them have resided in Warwick District well in excess of 60 years were unable to secure a placement in their local school (Barford) for their children, due to Barford School being already oversubscribed.

WDC have stated that Traveller children need to have a permanent domicile, to access local services. I hope WDC are not suggesting that Traveller children are to be given preferential treatment in accessing local schools in the Barford/Sherbourne area?

We think it is more than a coincidence that the last time there was an influx of Travellers in the Sherbourne area the crime rate increased. We refer specifically to all the drain covers being stolen in Sherbourne. To date no one has been apprehended by the police for the theft. This incident had the potential of becoming a fatality, Mr Rees a blind resident of Sherbourne, it was his good fortune not to fall down the holes that were exposed, and being killed.

. Site 20 - vehicular access to this site is from an already heavily utilised road network. Access and egress to and from this site to the highways network would not be safe.

. Site 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment, rendering the site unviable.

. Site 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Area Policies, especially RAPs 1 (New Housing), 6 (New Employment), 10 (Safeguarding Rural Roads) and 15 (Camping and caravan Sites). In all respects the site fails to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

. Sites 20 - the development of this site could not take place without a material adverse effect on the landscape and could not be integrated without harming the very fragile visual amenity of this site.

. Site 20 - is not a location which allows peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community. e.g.. stolen drain covers and the intimation that there may be preferential schools admission in favour of traveller children.

Our comments regarding site 20 apply in some respect to all sites you have identified.

We would respectfully request that you rethink and revise your ill advised scheme.