Object

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

Representation ID: 56041

Received: 13/07/2013

Respondent: Mr Peter Hagan

Representation Summary:

On a High Risk travel route (over 10 serious accidents in the last 3 years).
The Fosse Way extremely busy and likely to get busier with traffic from Jaguar/Land Rover at Gaydon.
Few if any bus stops. Providing bus stops would dangerous for road users.
no paths/pavements so dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists.
Children getting to school would be in real danger.
Local schools and doctors' surgeries are already at full capacity.
Will exacerbate existing local problems with mains sewerage and drainage. Providing additional capacities would be very costly.
in a flood risk area and regularly flood in winter. would be very inconvenient and could lead to expensive legal claims.

Therefore choosing this site would be unwise and extremely costly.

Full text:

I wish to record my objection to the above proposed sites near Harbury.
I consider both these proposed sites to be inappropriate because of the
following:-

1. Travel Problems.

Both sites are on a High Risk travel route with more than 10 serious accidents in the last 3 years.
The roads around these sites are extremely busy, especially The Fosse Way with the prospect of even busier traffic from Jaguar/Land Rover at Gaydon. There are few if any bus stops and providing these would be an added danger for road users. With no paths nor pavements it would be dangerous to walk anywhere and cycling would be equally hazardous.
Children attempting to get to school would be in real danger.

2.Local Amenities.

These are already at full capacity levels and certainly primary, junior and secondary scools would be unable to accommodate extra numbers. The same could be said of doctors surgeries.

3. Environmental Mattters.

The proposed sites will have a devastating effect on mains sewerage and drainage in local villages wo are experiencing problems already. The cost of providing and maintaining additional capacities to meet increased usage would be colossal.Both proposed sites are in a flood risk area and are regularly flooded in winter times. This would not only be very inconvenient but could lead to expensive legal claims.

To summarize, I think it would be unwise and extremely costly to choose either of the sites and for the reasons listed I trust these sites will be rejected.