Having read this document, I note that consideration is being given to two permanent Gypsy and Traveller sites (GT03 and GT04) at Harbury Lane. This email refers to the reasons why I am objecting to consideration of these sites.
Before I begin my formal objection, I should point out that I believe that it is everyone's inalienable right to live somewhere, regardless of the lifestyle which they chose to follow. However, such rights must be balanced against the rights of those who are already living in an area. My objection therefore is based on this premise
Background
I have lived in Harbury for over 30 years and during that time a small amount of additional housing has been built for local users. Prior to consideration of any new building, a huge amount of detailed information was gathered which revolved around village demographics, the effects of additional numbers on health facilities, education facilities, transport, congestion, parking, recreational amenities etc.
I note that the WDC has not sought to ask Harbury village residents the same questions before it placed GT03 and GT04 on its list of potential permanent settlements located near Harbury village. I would have thought that such research would be essential BEFORE any consideration is given to any site which would result in increased use of those facilities.

My Objections:
1) Both GT03 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route (Harbury Lane and Fosse Way). It is also a known high risk accident spot and because of this, public transport would not be able to stop near the sites. There is no separate provision for pedestrians or cyclists on either Harbury Lane, Fosse Way or Middle Road. Thus, at neither site is there any safe way for children to get to Harbury School without vehicular assistance. This would mean that the site would exacerbate parking and obstruction problems at the school, which have only recently been overcome by ensuring village parents walk their children to school. Increased vehicular traffic would also increase the risk to those very children. It should also be pointed out that driving young children to school has also been blamed for the rising obesity levels, and I feel sure WDC would not endorse any plan that made driving the only method to get children to school.(See: Safe routes to school- an American document which nevertheless holds true for the UK http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/resourcecenter/quick-facts )

2) Even if (1) could be overcome at reasonable cost, the current village school is already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic.

3) The village surgery is also running at capacity and has, as far as I have been able to ascertain, not been consulted by WDC to see if it could take additional patients.

4) As far as I can tell, sites GT03 and GT04 have no running water, mains sewerage, drainage or mains gas supply. Whilst the later can be overcome with the use of Butane gas cylinders, the former are essential for public health and the prevention of pollution of local water courses. Such pollution is likely to damage local wildlife, grazing livestock and be a health hazard.

5) I note that your document mentions that sites should not have a high risk of flooding. The sites mentioned DO have a risk of flooding given that they are affected by water run off from Harbury.

I believe that the incorporation of sites GT03 and GT04 was done with little research of their impact on the local community, the local wildlife and habitat. I also note that the majority of sites for discussion are located right on the edges of the WDC area with none located in the centres of main population of Leamington Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth. I am not sure why this is.

Please accept this email as a formal objection. I have included my personal information which is not to be released publicly without my express permission.