Please accept the following as comment on the current Gypsy and Traveller Consultation.

Site GT 12 North of Westham Lane, Barford.

As a general point I remain staggered that this site is still on a shortlist of all possible sites in the district and it undermines my faith in WDCs ability to evaluate options against their own stated criteria.

1 - Proximity to GP surgery etc: There is no GP in Barford. The school and scarce public transport is accessible only by crossing an extremely dangerous road. This is a sweeping bend on a fast bit of road as recent accident statistics will prove. I am not at all happy crossing it with my kids.
2 - Safe access to road network. As above, this is not a safe stretch of road. We nearly get rear ended pretty much every time we turn into the village from the north. It is a fast and sweeping bend.
3 - Noise and other disturbance. This is a busy trunk road. It will be noisy for the travellers
4- Sites which can be integrated into the landscape.: This is the real big issue here. Land to the west of the A429 is obviously and distinctly open coutryside. It represents an iconic bit of of the River Avon valley on a distinct meander contained to the west by a steep scarp. The traveller site here would be completely out of character and would intrude in open views to the west. Moreover, the proposed site being elongated and spread along the roadside appears to be designed to maximise visual intrusion. Its influence will be accentuated by its proposed form so that it will appear from the road as prominent as the village itself.

The site is prominent due to its open countryside setting, it is prominent because of its insensitive design and it is prominent in that it is next to a busy road seen by thousands of people every day. The utilitarian traveller site would become the face of Barford. WDC would have little or no control over the viability or performance of any landscape mitigation once it has been implemented since you are simply walking away once consent is granted.
I will not be swayed by arguments that mitigation planting will alleviate this harm. Traveller sites are what they are. They tend to be utilitarian in character with few aesthetic merits (and why should they?). This is simply a case of the wrong site.

Site GT12a Barford Community Meadow

The same points apply as for GT 12 with the added insult that a huge amount of community thought care and work has gone in to this site to make it available to the community. The fact that this is still being put forward as a possible site speaks volumes about the WDC's attitudes to existing communities. Truly, this makes me despair.

General Points...for what they are worth.

I believe that WDC is failing in its duties by not considering incorporating these new gypsy and traveller sites into the new planned communities that are coming forward. It depresses me to think that this proactive approach is not being pursued because of the unhealthy influence the major house builders and developers have over our council leaders. Instead you are seeking to somehow lose this unpopular requirement in the rural community.

I believe WDC is failing in its duties by not challenging the function and performance of the greenbelt north of Warwick and Leamington (a 1950s designation with the main aim of preventing Birmingham and Coventry from merging. Its function and performance can and should be reviewed in this District). Instead you are blindly piling development pressure including the gypsy and traveller sites on our rural communities in the south of the District. In the south we feel embattled and that our interests are not represented by our Council leaders. It makes me sad and angry in equal measure.