Dear Sir or Madam

I have now had the opportunity to read the document in detail. I would like to raise the following questions.

- My first question relates to the images contained within the gypsy and travellers document, and I would be grateful if you would indicate which gypsy or traveller site they relate to?

- The proposed 'south side' development provides additional infrastructure including two primary schools and a secondary school, together with significant investment in an extensive highway infrastructure. Given the significant improvements to the infrastructure, why are the potential gypsy and traveller sites not being considered within the same overall plan. It seems we currently have a local plan for housing and a local plan for gypsies and travellers. I would be grateful if you could explain the rationale, as to why are we developing infrastructure on one hand, whilst at the same time placing significant demand on small villages such as Harbury where the existing infrastructures cannot cope?

- The presentation provided by WDC, states that according to the National Policy Planning Framework it requires plans to be used that are evident based.
Please indicate where the evidence supporting your local plan can be found, for:
- each site is to have between 5-15 pitches
- Each pitch needs 500sq/m
- Each site needs storage connected with employment
- Each pitch needs space for a travelling caravan

- I am looking for particular evidence to support the statement 'Sites which can be integrated into the landscape without harming the character of the area'. How has this been evidenced for the currently proposed sites?

It is my opinion that the current plans do not meet the criteria defined by the National Policy Planning Framework. I am looking to receive detailed evidence to suggest otherwise. The current document is nothing more than a glossy (expensive) marketing document, and does not form the basis of a rational consultation document.