Dear sir/madam

I write regarding the proposed location of gypsy and traveler sites in warwickshire, as outlined in the new local plan.

Points made on government guidance are referenced from "Standard Note - Gypsies and Travellers: campsites and trespass - id: SN/SC/1127 published by House of Commons Library, author Christopher Barclay - available online (www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01127.pdf)

Government advice states "A Gypsy camp site is no longer appropriate development within the Green Belt." The proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Baginton (G101 & G107) are innapropriate development in the green belt.

The noise generated from the plains flying more or less directly overhead until late at night, combined the noise and light from the airport and associated business park, combined with the smells in the vicinity of the sewage treatment works, will lead to a reduced quality of life for the residents at the proposed sites.

Government guidelines state planning should address under-provision. There are three traveler sites within a few miles of G101 & G107 - at siskin drive, brandon lane, and oxford road which already meet such provision. The proposed sites do not satisfy the local plan strategy of "distributing development across the district".

There is insufficient provision for local doctors, schools, or hospitals, and current facilities are already sufficiently overcrowded that the residents of Baginton have difficulty obtaining such services. This does not match the government guidelines that suitable accommodation "from which travelers can access education, health, welfare, and employment infrastructure".

The proposed site on stonly road is on private grenbelt land used by a local business. It is unacceptable to damage that business' ability to be profitable by forcing them to give up their land to a development.

The proposed site G101 is located in an area that will be used by the coventry and warwickshire gateway development. This development proposes to deliver many thousands of jobs by your own estimates, and would be of greater benefit to the entire community than its use as a gypsy and traveler site.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of warwick distrcit are preferable to G101 and G107 as they are not on green-belt land, have access to better facilities, would not have an adverse impact on local businesses, and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

The governments own statement is "to reduce tensions between settled and traveler communities in plan-making and planning decisions". After having many discussions with people affected locally, I can confirm that the manor in which the consultation has run has served to increase tensions between settled and traveller communities. I have heard many overt suggestions of intimidation and violence as a direct result of these discussions. (actions i personally neither support nor condone) I would strongly suggest further measures to be taken immediately in order to better inform local residents, in order to calm these tensions.