Object

Preferred Options for Sites

Representation ID: 63835

Received: 05/04/2014

Respondent: Mr Martin Welch

Representation Summary:

Documents do not explain why you cannot resist this requirement.
Interested to see why in four years, assessment rose from 11 to 31.

Full text:

I am a resident of what is, according to the Sunday Times, one of the most beautiful places in England in which to live. However, I see you have plans to ensure that some other village will, in future, inherit that accolade. I am referring to your plans to ruin a beautiful part of Warwickshire by installing freeloading, itinerant, parasitic, squalid thieves adjacent to the village of Barford. The adjectives are born of direct experience, not simply hyperbolic opinion.
I have read the various documents you have assembled, none of which explain why you cannot simply resist this requirement and only explain the lengths you have gone to in order to satisfy a minority, non contributory interest. The one document I cannot seem to find is the GTAA assessment report itself. So, could you please forward me a copy of the Salford University GTAA report (November 2013)?
I am interested to know why, in the space of four years, your assessment for provision of pitches rose from 11 in 2008, to 31 in 2012. I assume that the report I have requested will answer this question.
To Mr Rhead, cc'ed. You are responsible for the security of our beautiful land and the communities who work so hard to create and sustain our environment. If you fail in that responsibility and are responsible for the loss of a thriving local community, summed up perhaps by the beautifully quaint, somewhat quixotic success of the local shop, then it will be to your eternal shame.
yours in utter disbelief,