I wish to object against the following sites for gypsies and travellers:-

* Site 6
* Site 9
* Site 12
* Site 16
* Site 20

For the following reasons:-

*Site 16 is the flood compensation area from the Barford bypass build and contains a permanent central pond and is therefore unsuitable for any development.

*Sites 12 and 16 sit within/immediately adjacent to areas identified by the Environment Agency as having a significant risk of flooding.

*Sites 12 and 16 - apparently water voles reside here and immediately adjacent to these sites. These are a legally protected species.

*Sites 12 and 16 do not offer adequate pedestrian crossing facilities for safe access to Barford village.

*Sites 6 and 9 are situated on historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are therefore unsuitable for habitation.

*Site 20 is situated adjacent to historic landfills which though closed may still have the potential to release greenhouse gases and are therefore unsuitable for habitation.

*Sites 6 and 9 sit immediately adjacent to the Asps which WDC decided should remain open due to its value as a backdrop to Warwick Castle Park. The Revised Development Strategy therefore excludes the Asps and should also esclude the adjoining sites 6 and 9 for the same reason.

*Sites 6 and 9 - there have been a number of reported wild deer sighting on this land and there is a population of deer that freely roam across the Castle grounds on to these 2 sites and beyond.

*Sites 12 and 16 are accessed by vehicles from the A429 which was constructed as a bypass to Barford village. It is a 60 mph road and there have been a significant number of accidents on it since it opened, including a fatality. The additional traffic will exacerbate this issue due to the inadequate access from this major trunk road.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 are not sustainable in terms of multi modal accessibility. None of the sites offer the ability to access local community facilities (schools, doctors surgeries, shops for site 20) on foot or bike via pedestrian footpaths or cycle routes or by bus. The only means of access is by car which would place further pressure on the local highway network infrastructure.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - development would lead to an unacceptable loss of farmland and rural employment rendering the isolated sites totally unviable.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - development would have a material negative impact on the local primary schools particularly Barford St Peters with it's requirement to provide 70-90 new homes during the plan period.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - WDC have disregarded their own Rural Areas policy especially 1 - New Housing, 6 - New Employment, 10 - Safeguarding Rural Roads and 15 - camping and caravan sites. In all respects the sites fail to meet the policy criteria to allow any form of development.

*Sites 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 - are not locations which allow peaceful and integrated co-existence with the local community.