I am writing to let you know that I am not happy with the proposal or the location for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site.

The basis for my objection is as follows:-

* The local amenities in the area are already over stretched with the local school already full to capacity.
* Appointments needed at the Surgery result in a 1 to 2 week delay and often means travelling to Bishops Itchington. This is difficult for those without transport.
* The road are suffering already with poor maintenance with pothole left un-repaired for months on end. You only need look at Constance drive as the junction has laid un-repaired for several months and is a danger to cyclists.
* The locations indicated on the map appears to not consider the high levels of traffic that have already resulted in injury and fatalities in a relativity short period of time.
* I may be wrong but a site was established a short distance away on the Prince Thorpe to Coventry road. To date this has still not been fully utilised.
* There is also a site on the road to Stow that remains less than half filled.
* Last year and several years before, we experienced sever flooding in this proposed area that resulted in the main road being closed for a long period of time and this area was under water.
* Harbury has already taken more than their fair share of new housing putting excessive loads on the sewer, water and power systems. We are already experiencing lower water pressure even though we were told at the time of the new dwelling development at Bush Heath lane that there would no effects on us. The sewers I understand has already had to be modified.

Before we start tearing up farm land, all other sites should be fully utilised. I am a tax payer and do not feel that this plan has been thought through very well. If we have spare cash for poorly thought out schemes like this this, spare cash should first be used to provide the services we have already been charged for within our rates and the employment tax we pay as PAYE.
Last year we experienced floods and this area was under water. You my think that it was a one off, but this has been happening quite regular. Poor location of site could result in the cost of re-homing/housing flood victims putting additional strain on the already stretched resource.

I am aware that there is an enquiry/judicial review currently underway to see if this policy being used to justify this additional provision is flored. I therfore believe it is only right for all parties to wait untill this has policy/rule has been review befoe we move forward to use for agricultural or other land for this provision, directly or indirectly or by compulsary purchase as once commited there is no way back.

If we have to go ahead with one site the invietigation work to establish suitable sites has been floored. The team have missed of one piece of land that was not in the plan for consideration and can be found driving south on the Fosse way approximatly 1 mile south of the M40 motor. Formally a gaurage this has recently been redesignated as 'for building purposes'. There are no dangerous road junctions near by and this has good sight lines. Finally this would clear up what is currently an eyesaw. Why was this missed?

I would therefore like to formally object to the proposal on the above grounds