GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre

We are writing to object to the "Gypsy and Traveller Site Options" outlined in the Draft Local Plan concerning the site at GT10 - Land at Tollgate House and Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre.

The reasons we object to these plans are:
* Although there is a GP surgery and school in Bishops Tachbrook, these are only accessible by car as pedestrian access is only via the busy Banbury Road and narrow country lanes with no footpaths. The site is very remote from major amenities.
* The access to the site would be from the extremely dangerous and busy Banbury Road. There is no street lighting on this stretch of road and slowing down and turning is already extremely dangerous.
* A site in this location is only accessible by car, there are no local amenities (shops, schools, doctors etc.) which are accessible on foot.
* There is considerable noise from the Banbury Road, especially during peak hours. The noise from the M40 is also audible from our house.
* There is unlikely to be adequate provision of utilities without significant investment. There is no mains gas and we have no mains drainage.
* Developing a site in this location would place undue pressure on the local infrastructure and services, particularly the provision for health and schools in the local area.
* The proposed site is close to the Guide Dogs for the Blind National Breeding Centre. The development of a site in this location would introduce a new population of pet dogs of unknown health and vaccination status which could carry diseases and therefore bring a serious risk of infection to the breeding stock and guide dog puppies. The National Breeding Centre site was chosen to be away from existing built up areas and other dog populations.
* All of the proposed sites are concentrated in the South of the county.18 of the sites are situated south of Warwick and Leamington Spa rather than being distributed more evenly through the county.

Taking all of the above into account it is very hard to see how the site has come to have been chosen as a possible site for travellers. It appears to fail the relevant criterion if correctly applied, and would not be in the best interests of the travellers or the local residents alike. In the above circumstances I would most strongly urge you and your colleagues to look at alternative sites which would be better equipped and suited for travellers since the site is wholly inappropriate.