I wish to submit a strong objection to the proposed gypsy and traveller site on Stratford Road.

This objection is based on this land being completely unfeasible, unlawful in some cases and quite simply not suitable or viable for family occupation. This is due to a range of factors which I will detail later in this email.

Firstly however, I wanted to emphasise how disappointed and shocked I am about the apparent lack of due process in the proposal of this site for a permanent G&T site. As a local resident, I 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, nor was it considered at shortlisting stage. How then can it suddenly appear as the site giving the majority provision for the G&T camp allocation? This is not a clear, robust and transparent process.
Furthermore, the situation has been exacerbated 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 with unqualified council staff sent along to field questions that they do not have the expertise to answer. i.e.a housing officer disseminating incorrect information rather than planning staff!
I believe the whole process to be flawed and certainly not within the spirit of a democracy that promotes informed decision making.

I return to the key factors which form the basis of my objection to the proposed Stratford Road site:

Firstly, the unsuitability of the location. The site is next to a major sewerage works which can be smelt from our house nearly 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. To fully investigate the potential noise impact, the area should be assessed over a long period and across differing weather conditions.... especially wet weather when braking tyres can significantly increase the noise pollution.
As if the adverse message sent to the G&T community and the potential environmental and definite air pollution from the sewerage works compounded by the noise pollution from the M40 wasn't enough to make this site unsuitable........ it is also flanked by a river and a very busy A road. Surely this poses significant risks for young children,. The government's own guidelines for the location of gypsy and traveller camps say a safe environment is essential - how can this site be considered safe surrounded by so many hazards?
I believe that the air and water quality was a major issue identified by WDC's own site evaluation, along with the nitrate contamination of the soil. I cannot find any firm, concrete solutions for mitigating any of these risks..... nor are the public being asked to comment on this very serious issue on the hardcopy consultation forms. Are environmental and health and safety concerns being ignored under the pressure of delivering a complete Local Plan?

Secondly, the proposed site is a flood plain (flood zone 2 and 3) and yet the Government's own planning policy for traveller sites says they should not be located in areas where there is a high risk of flooding. Although WDC say this risk can be alleviated, this is speculated theory based on outdated evidence. Even if it could be, the costs associated surely compromise the site's viability.

Thirdly, any development down the A429 will have a major impact on the traffic and safety of the area, It's a very busy road anyway, with some very dangerous bends. I understand that Severn Trent Water will not give access across their land so the only access route to the site currently possible is a narrow farm track. This surely contravenes safety standards, especially considering large trailers and caravans will need access to the site. In the government's good practice guidance for location of G&T sites, there are very clear recommendations that there should be more than one access route, both ideally allowing vehicles to pass but essentially allowing access for emergency vehicles. The guidelines specify that District Authorities should contact the local Fire Authority but I haven't seen a report on the website about the outcome of such an investigation.
Once again, there are probably ways to mitigate the situation (although these are not outlined by WDC).... but once again, these will negatively impact upon both the ability to deliver the site within the time deadlines and also the viability.
Therefore this sounds like yet another example of a cherry-picked, unfair consultation process - i.e. asking for feedback on selective site criteria, yet side-stepping those fundamental issues which actually raise concerns - these feel like they are being glossed over.

I ask that you seriously consider the points made. This is not a suitable or viable site, nor is its proposal the culmination of a fair, transparent assessment and consultation. It is fundamentally flawed at both procedural and policy level. WDC needs to acknowledge this and move onto finding a suitable site, rather than throwing more taxpayers money over justifying this inappropriate, desperate last-minute offering.