As a local resident I am struggling to find any positive justification for the health and welfare of a small community of people, children and animals to live next to a very busy and dangerous A4177 at the proposed site for some of the reasons as explained below which are shared with the local community for whome some like me have lived in the area for over 10 years. I also understand that some of the Gypsy community feel the same way which also raises the question of whether this land would ever actually be settled on by any travellers passing through the area and so this would effectively become an un managed waste ground bringing another set of health and safety problems.
The Gypsy and Traveller Site is proposed to be on Green Belt land. To build on Green Belt land Central Government require there to be genuinely 'Exceptional Circumstances'. However no such 'Exceptional Circumstances' appear to have been advanced.
There is an inconsistency as the Council class the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site both as Grade 3 agricultural land that as such should be protected from development by the development of brown-field sites; as well as designating it 'Previously Developed Land' when selecting those potential Gypsy and Traveller Sites that are most suitable for development.
A key argument used by the Council for the rejection of Site 2 as a development site for houses was its proximity to the canal. Therefore the same criteria must be used as an argument to reject the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.
Similarly a planning application concerning storing caravans at this site was recently rejected by Warwick District Council and by an Inspector at appeal, which is clearly completely incompatible with the designation of this site as a proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site.
How is it that the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site, that opens onto the busy A4177 and is immediately adjacent to the proposed site for 70-90 new houses, is preferred over the Kites Nest site that is very much more isolated and not on a main road?
The proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site puts the longstanding businesses of the owner of the site at risk and reduces the value of their remaining land, with obvious negative consequences, which raises the possibility of the taxpayer being required to pay compensation.
In addition the proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site would separate and dominate the longstanding community of 14 homes recognised to exist by the previous Inspector.
Warwick District Council do appear to have agreed to use taxpayers money to carry out compulsory purchase to obtain land for Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which would be contrary to the wishes of Central Government.