The area of search is unsuitable for the following reasons mindful of the Council's own criteria:

The first criterion is for convenient access to a GP surgery. There are no GP surgeries in Barford. This site would, therefore, fail in this criterion. Although there is a school and limited public transport - the effect of the Barford bypass means that these services are not particularly accessible to this area of search and certainly there is no adequate pedestrian crossing facility to assist in accessing these services.

The western part of the area does fall within the flood plain as identified on the Environment Agency maps. Development in this area would not be consistent with avoiding areas with a high risk of flooding.

In my view safe access would not be possible. The Barford By-Pass already has a poor accident record. In my view adding more traffic in this location and slow moving vehicles would exacerbate an already unsafe situation. It is my view that delivering an acceptable access is not possible.

To the east of the site is located the bypass and therefore this is not consistent with an objective of avoiding locating development where there is potential for noise and other disturbance.

There are no utilities within the area of search.

The Council has produced no evidence in relation to the ecological and biodiversity importance of the land within this area of search. It is my contention that development in this area would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity interest contrary to the provisions of the NPPF. Indeed I am very much aware that the area contains a number of protected species including but not limited to water voles and badgers which, I understand, to be legally protected species. This, in my view, represents a failure to accord with the Council's proposed criteria to avoid areas where there could be adverse impact on important features of the natural environment.

Given that this site is greenfield and divorced from the settlement of Barford it is not considered capable of accommodating development that could be successfully integrated into the landscape without materially harming the character of the area.

This site does not fully accord with the provisions of 'Planning Policy for Traveller sites' as it does not promote peaceful integrated co-existence between the site and the local community and does not avoid undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.

In light of the above I wish to object to the area of GT12 on the basis that it is not appropriate as a gypsy and traveller site and would urge the Authority to proceed no further with this as a potential site. It is unsuitable, undeliverable and undevelopable.