I am responding as a resident in Warwick District.

I trust that this response will suffice, despite the response forms suggesting a separate response is necessary for each proposed site.

1 - Strategic / Site-wide comments

a - Required Pitch Numbers
I remain highly sceptical and unconvinced by your evidence base for the required number of permanent pitches in WDC. The timing of the surveys was in the summer during the travelling season (the population in WDC at that time was not necessarily representative). The surveys were carried out by members of the travelling community on the travelling community. I suggest House builders would not be asked to interview house builders about how many houses they would like to build. I remain unconvinced that the Salford report provides a robust evidence base that fits with a national, logical and coordinated pattern of provision. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction against a previous inspector's findings. The massive shift from previous figures leaves me with no faith whatsoever in these figures.

b - Prematurity of the Consultation
The fact that sites are included in the consultation that quite clearly do not meet WDC's own criteria for selection suggests one of two things. Either officers are incapable of applying a simple set of criteria to sieve sites to rule out the totally inappropriate or those that do not meet the minimum requirements (which I am sure is not true), or the first sieve / down-selection has not yet been carried out in which case, the consultation is premature and is causing a huge amount of angst and worry unnecessarily.

c - Green Belt
I think it is unfortunate that the Local Plan is suggesting so much development south of Leamington and Warwick. WDC is failing a large number of its residents by not challenging the out-dated Green Belt designation to the north. It dates from a time when there was far less development pressure and is not fit for purpose today as a policy of restraint. The "exceptional circumstances" are the unprecedented development pressure on the district at the moment. I urge the council to review the green belt boundaries to the north of our district. You will find plenty of sites ripe for development without harming the aims and objectives of this regional green belt. To my mind by simply pushing all development to the south, WDC is delivering banal and crass spatial planning and failing in its duties to future generations.

2 - Site-Specific Comments.

GT6 - A prominent site occupying open countryside and adjoining the Castle Park. The site acts as an open buffer between possible new housing development along Banbury Road and land to the south and west. The site is excluded from the Local Plan for residential development due to its openness. The same logic holds for any built development including travellers and Gypsies. Development would have an adverse impact on the rural character by introducing urbanising influences and probable decrease in the condition of the landscape.
The site is on an historic tip.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT9 - This site occupies a prominent, elevated and sloping site. The visual influence of development on this site would be widespread. The site would have a distinct urbanising effect. This is to all intents and purposes open countryside and for any other development would not be considered. Why is it even considered here? Development would cause distinct harm to the character of the area, it is isolated from services, would impact on the setting of Greys Mallory.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped.

GT12 - I really struggle with this site and how it comes to be included in the consultation. It occupies open countryside on the iconic river floodplain of the River Avon. It comprises a distinctive meander in the one landscape feature that defines the Warwickshire Countryside. The site is remote enough from settlements to be perceived as urbanisation in open countryside. Access to the site if off the A429 on a sweeping 60mph stretch. Since the (welcomed) construction of the bypass, there have been a number of accidents involving vehicles joining and leaving the road including one very unfortunate recent fatality. In addition, everyone who uses the junctions into Barford has witnessed or been involved in countless near misses. The accidents will keep on coming. We are not particularly well served by public transport, nor doctors in the village. Our school is full to bursting. It is a small community school that excels for our children. A transient, part time element would not be beneficial.
The site does not meet some of the key criteria set by WDC and should be dropped. In particular, road safety and landscape character.

GT 16 - I refer to my prematurity point above. Inclusion of this site in a public consultation seriously undermines the credibility of WDC. It brings into doubt the seriousness of the other sites or the intellectual rigour with which this process is being carried out....This site is a balancing pond / flood compensation feature. Enough said.

After all that, I appreciate that this is a very difficult exercise. I hope the right answer prevails