We (my husband & I) wish to submit a strong objection to the proposed gypsy and traveller site on the Stratford Road.

Before we go straight into the reasons of our objections, we would like to stress how disappointed and shocked we are about the apparent lack of due process in the proposal of this site for a permanent G&T site. As local residents, we have been following the progression of the Local Plan proposals, including the positioning of the G&T sites. Stratford Road did not appear in the original list of possible sites, neither was it considered at the shortlisting stage. So, how can it suddenly appear as the site giving the majority provision for the G&T sites allocation? This is not a clear, robust and transparent process.

Furthermore, the situation has been worsened by the lack of clear information available in this consultation period. The information on the website is unclear, patchy and sometimes very misleading. The information given at the consultation surgeries has not been much better and in many situations contradicting some of the published documentation.

The key factors which we form the bases of our strong objection to the proposed Stratford Road site are:

Unsuitability of the location (in terms of Air, Water & Soil Quality) -The site is next to a major sewerage works which can be smelt from our house on chase meadows, less than a mile away. What will this smell be like much closer and what kind of message does placement next to sewage send to the gypsy and traveller community? On the other side of the proposed site is the busy and noisy M40 motorway, the impact of which was not fully evaluated by WDC in their limited assessment of noise, under fine weather conditions. The sustainability assessment identified this as an area of significant concern (flagged as red). Surely this alone, makes this not suitable for a permanent residential development, particularly one where children will live.

Flood risk - This proposed site includes areas classified as flood zone 2 & 3a, in the G&T sites good practice guidance, it states "that caravan sites for permanent residence are considered 'high vulnerable' and should not be permitted in areas where there is a high probability that flooding will occur (zone 3 areas)". So selecting this site clearly goes against this guidance. We appreciate there has been suggestions of flood alleviate, but we haven't seen any specific evidence that the flood risk can be eliminated or the cost involved to migrate the flood risk.

Availability of Land - having seen correspondence from Severn Trent directly, they appear to be unaware of WDC intentions of using this land as a G&T site at the bottom of their proposed development of land for economic/commercial use. They are also objecting to this proposed G&T site. Whereas WDC has suggested through this consultation that all land owners (including Severn Trent) were supportive of this process and were making their land available. This backs up my point about WDC information being unclear and misleading.

Access to the land - the access road to the proposed G&T site is a narrow farm track which in its current state would not be suitable for the number of vehicles, including caravans/mobile homes to use. Furthermore accessing the site from Longbridge would place the main entrance to be next to a grade 2 listed building (Longbridge Manor) which itself is located on a dangerous bend in the road with poor visibility for motorist. The Government's own guidelines on planning G&T sites set some very strict guidelines around access, particular for Emergency Vehicles. Therefore in short, there are lot of issues around making this an easy and safe access to this proposed G&T site, which have not simply been addressed.

Effect on the local economy - the sustainability assessment on this section has been graded as "?" and supporting commentary states that 'the effect on the economy is uncertain at this stage'. Furthermore the consultation document makes no mention of the potential effect of the site on the local economy in its criteria at all. Given that tournament fields business park remains largely undeveloped after the 6 years we have been living on this site and the likely negative effect on future demand if a G&T site is opened opposite, this clearly suggests to us that WDC is trying to avoid the whole issues of the negative effect on the local economy that this proposed site could have?

We conclude that the proposed site is not suitable for the intended use and therefore should not be taken forward as a preferred site. Whilst acknowledging that the WDC does has a statutory obligation to provide sufficient permanent & temporary pitches to meet the accommodation needs of G&T population within its area, this no way justifies the selection of a site that is clearly completely unsuitable across a wide range of specific criteria as set above here and also in the response submitted by the Chase Meadows Resident Association (CMRA), which we also fully endorse and support the contents.