Dear Sir / Madam,
I'd like to the object to the proposal for siting a gypsy and traveller site at the proposed location near Stratford Road, Warwick. My reasons for the objection are as listed below:

1). The documentation on this website doesn't appear to mention any potential effect that this site may have on the local economy. I was surprised by this as I would have thought that since there has been so little investment in (and the general under-development of) the Tournament Fields site, this would be a very important aspect to consider. I get the feeling that if a gypsy and traveller site is opened opposite to it this, it would only "hurt" the local economy further. Due to its lack of presence in the report, I could be excused for thinking that this may be a point that the council is trying to avoid. As the Council has made a claims in the past regarding the positive effect that Tournament Fields will have on the local Warwick economy surely this aspect of the consultation would be of primary importance?

2). The consultation document also does not seem to address the access to the site in any detail. The text currently reads 'Advice expected from WCC soon'. Surely, the current narrow farm track leading to the site from Longbridge would be totally inadequate? I presume it could be improved if Severn Trent provide access to the proposed site over their land, but I've heard that they have indicated that they would not consider this. I'd also like to draw your attention to the government's own guidelines regarding access to gypsy and traveller sites, particularly with regards to providing access for emergency vehicles. The governments guidelines state:
'In designing a site, all routes for vehicles on the site, and for access to the site, must allow easy access for emergency vehicles and safe places for turning vehicles' and 'To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other (minimum 5.5m). Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site'.

Therefore, I believe the current farm track would be totally unsuitable. Also, access to the site is located via a dangerous bend in the road which has very poor visibility. As with objection point 1 above, there seems to be a number of issues regarding access to the proposed site that the council just doesn't seemed to have not looked at.

3). The document section titled 'Flooding' identifies that the site is on a designated flood plain (flood zones 2, 3, 3a and 3b).
As with objection point 2 above, I'd like to draw your attention to the government's own guidelines regarding the planning of gypsy and traveller sites, which states:
'Caravan sites for permanent residence are considered "highly vulnerable" and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (Zone 3 areas)'.

The council's document does go on to say say that it has a technical report which has been endorsed by the Environment Agency and says that the risk of flooding can be 'mitigated' and this will 'eradicate the threat completely'. However, this statement is quite vague doesn't detail the cost of this 'mitigation' work.

Based on the government's guidelines, it seem to me that the council needs to prove that the flood risk can be completely removed (plus explain how this work would be funded). In my mind, this is another reason why this site is completely unsuitable.

4). As with objection 1 above, the document doesn't appear to identify the obvious concerns from an air, water and soil quality perspective. I would expect this to be significant concern with it being positioned so close to Severn Trent's sewage treatment plant and the M40? I can't see why anyone could consider this site suitable for residential development, particularly where children would be living.

As with point's made above, the government's guidelines on planning these sites state:
'It is essential to ensure that the location of a site will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on the general health and well-being of the residents and pose particular safety risks for young children. All prospective site locations should be considered carefully before any decision is taken to proceed, to ensure that the health and safety of prospective residents are not at risk'.

This would suggest that this is another area that needs much more attention with regards to this planning application.

Thank you for your time on this matter and hope that these comments have been useful to your consultation.

Regards,
Sam Price