Representation
The area is isolated and remote. Why would any gypsy families want to use it. There are no footpaths along Harbury Lane which has fast moving traffic. To get anywhere the families would need to use cars or the bus, this does seem a poor choice from the gypsy point of view. As a resident in the area I know that we cannot build additional properties on our land due to the local plan - it may not be green belt, but planning permission for residents would and is refused. The broadband won't be upgraded - it is currently 0.75MB (one of the worst in the country), there are no mains sewers or gas. We have no bus services or pavements and no PCSO support. The preference for Gypsy families appears to be to pitch near other communities, so with this site being isolated, it may provided and no one would use it - what an expensive waste of resources.

The site does not meet the fundamental planning criteria laid out in the NPPF, guidance from Department of Communities and Local Government and WDC's own consultation documents for Gypsy & Traveller sites. GT04 does not comply with planning policy whereby sites should provide access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:-
- Accessibility to shops and local services: GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommended 5-10mins walk on a pavement.
-Proximity to local community: GT04 does not meet the national planning framework guidelines recommendation for sites to be on community periphery to encourage integration.
-Establishing 5-10 pitches at GT04 would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children). This is contradictory to national planning framework guidelines recommendations.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for accessibility to good local transport.
- GT04 does not meet national planning framework guidelines recommendations for availability of good infrastructure (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception).The infrastructure at GT04 is poor and would require considerable investment to rectify. And this is not an expense that WDC should incur during times of cutbacks in public expenditure and services.

GT04 is a poor site for Road Safety, 'Harbury crossroads' is a notorious road traffic accident blackspot. adding more traffic, probably including towing vehicles, would only add to the risk on the local roads.

GT04 is a poor choice with families having children being within yards of dangerous roads. ie Harbury Lane and The Fosse Way, both fast and dangerous roads.

This scheme would only add to the dangers for the Gypsy Community and to the local road going traffic, with added congestion and both vehicles and pedestrian use of the local roadways.

WDC is clearly trying to comply to the demands put upon it by central government by providing this site. I would question why all of the suggested and preferred sites are to the far extreme of the WDC area. It is clear from looking at the map ot the site suggested in the consultation doccument, that WDC is pushing any issues that may arise from the provision of this or similar sites onto the residents of neighbouring District Council Areas. This means that WDC fulfills their obligations under the Central Government requirements but with little impact on it's own electorate.