I note that you have given Preferred Status to two G&T sites (GT02 + GT04) in the vicinity of Harbury. These sites were in your original discussion document and I raised my objections to them at that time. Below are my current ( and former objections).

In my opinion neither site should have got to this stage of the process as WDC has not, in my opinion, complied with government guidance in important areas (see below), which makes the whole process flawed and ipso facto any decisions resulting from said process invalid.

At the time the sites were originally considered there had been insufficient consultation as recommended in the government's guidance.
1. There was minimal contact with Stratford District Council. I have it in writing from the Chief Planning Officer that between February 2012 and January 2013 there had been just 3 meetings with SDC, only one of which had any minutes taken. Indeed, in the words of your Chief Planning Officer, "Although the council continue to hold dialogue with other councils and in particular Coventry City Council, Rugby Borough Council and Stratford District Council, sites within Warwick District have not been discussed at length."
In my opinion, this does not comply with the government's guidance notes
P5: Point 4:2
"to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites"
and 9c
"consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis, to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries)
2. Community groups prior to the decision on the sites were not consulted. A meeting was held in Harbury AFTER GT02 and 04 were put forward as preferred sites. This runs contra to the government's guidelines which state:
12- When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community."
3. The surgery and the school in Harbury were not consulted to identify if there was spare capacity. This is especially important given that I am led to believe money for extending any current facilities is either not available or extremely limited. This lack of consultation seems to be directly at odds with government guidance 4.11:"to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure"

The council failed to carry out any due diligence exercise on the Salford University GTAA report, which has formed the basis of its decision making. For example, WDC's own 2011 report identified the need for just 15 TRANSIT pitches and that "demand for permanent site-based accommodation was low and transitory in nature". Yet now we are led to believe that in addition to 15 transit pitches , there is now a need (according to Salford) of 15 PERMANENT pitches. Who has questioned this discrepancy?

Both sites will require the use of compulsory purchase powers. No costings have been provided either for the cost of purchase or for the loss of livelihood of those displaced by the compulsory purchase. This seems a fundamental issue, especially as current guidance from the ministry concerned with G&T sites indicates that such powers should NOT be used in relation to G&T sites.

Finally, I reiterate the following objections I made during the consultation phase:

a) Both GT02 and GT04 are located next to a busy commuter route . It is also a known that the Fosse Way is a high risk accident black spot and because of this, public transport would not be able to stop near the sites.

b) There is no separate provision for pedestrians or cyclists . Thus, at neither site is there any safe way for children to get to Harbury School without vehicular assistance (which seems, again, to run contra to government guidelines 4.11 "which travellers can access education,"). This would mean that the site would exacerbate parking and obstruction problems at the school, which have only recently been overcome . The school is already oversubscribed and is likely to remain so given the current village demographic.
c) As far as I can tell, sites GT02 and GT04 have no running water, mains sewerage, drainage or mains gas supply. Whilst the later can be overcome with the use of butane gas cylinders, the former are essential for public health and the prevention of pollution of local water courses. Such pollution is likely to damage local wildlife, grazing livestock and be a health hazard. In addition, the GT04 site is close to a chicken farm and so would be subject to strong atmospheric smells and pollution.

d) I note that your document mentions that sites should not have a high risk of flooding. Site GT04 does have a risk of flooding given that it is affected by water run off from Harbury.

e) Site GT04 will directly affect the view from the well-known Chesterton Windmill, which is important given the historic nature of the surrounding area.