I find the whole process of your Gypsy and Traveller site allocation deplorable.

During the initial round of consultation it was clear the intent of the council was wholly biased against Warwick, in particular the area of South Warwick and this has remained a constant throughout. One can only suspect that its due to the number of voices/ location of certain councillors.
There was not a single site in the consultation in and around Kenilworth and I yet can't believe there wasn't a single brown field/ prev. industrial site that would be suitable, with the vast majority of proposed sites lumped onto green field sites in West/ South Warwick an area that is already overly developed and suffering badly from the consequences of your previous actions.
You then selected a shortlist and appear since to have decided that only one is suitable.

And yet out of no where you now wish to allocate a large percentage of the pitches onto a site AGAIN in SWW Warwick.

I therefore object on these grounds -

1. There has been ZERO formal public consultation on this proposed site other than two hastily arranged drop ins, which were originally at the most inappropriate times for working families.
2. You appear to be refusing the public a say in the location, by not holding a public meeting and now refusing to attend one arranged by the CMRA and MP Chris White.
3. The Barford sites that were previously shortlisted were removed, with suspicious speed whilst the chair of planning committee is also the representative for Barford and yet did not step aside declaring a conflict of interest - how bizarre / unethical is that!
4. The site selected is totally inappropriate - the single biggest money producer for the area is tourism and yet you want to build a Gypsy site on the main transit route ! A blight on the approach to the 1100 year old historic town of Warwick.
5. The G&T community themselves ask for SMALLER sites which can hold a single family unit, not BIG sites as they recognise these larger sites cause issues, and fraction with the community.
6. You quote Newburgh as being the school, yet Mr Smith the Headteacher has previously and again more recently communicated to you in writing the school is at MAXIMUM capacity and it would be illegal to take a single child into Reception through Years 2, and as each year passes the problem only exasperates.
7, You have not consulted with any of the local business and yet you plan to do this under the guise of additional planning permission for business use. Yet Tournament Fields still has more land for sale. Clearly there is ZERO requirement for additional employment land in this area
8. Proximity to wildlife areas and the proximity to the River Avon.
9. I can't believe any family would want to live in such proximity to both the M40 for noise and danger to children or the ST Sewage plant that producs the most horrendous smells every evening. I live some distance away and it is often quite revolting

And finally as you know local opinion is totally against it, and therefore wholly unlikely to achieve one of your main aims - social integration.

If you decide to send no representation to the meeting at Aylesford on the 4th then you will only play further into the hands of the residents by inflaming the anger and causing more tension. There should be a formal and due period of consultation allowing the tax paying and voting public to have their say and the site transparently duly considered.