As a Warwick resident I writing to you to raise a number of concerns I have regarding the proposed gypsy/traveller site on the Stratford Road in Warwick. I believe the plan as outlined, currently falls short of a number of the councils own objectives, which I have sought to cover below:
1) I believe a key objective of the council is to ensure that scarce public funds are spent wisely, yet little evidence of the costs of making the proposed site suitable for habitation have been made available. It is my understanding that there has been no confirmation that the site will be made available for consensual purchase and that expensive legal action may be required to trigger a compulsory purchase - which may ultimately prove fruitless for the council. The site is also located in flood plain, which is likely to add to the costs of preparing the site should the purchase be successful. In a fair and open consultation process the forecast costs of this site should be presented against the other options being considered and a national benchmark to reassure the public that their money is being spent appropriately - which has not happened to date. In the absence of this information, the commercial viability of the site is called into question.
2) I believe a second objective of the council is to support local business and to ensure a thriving economy in Warwick, however rather than support this objective, the proposal looks likely to have a detrimental impact on local business. The proposed sites proximity to the Tournament Fields business park and local hotels is out of keeping with the professional image the area needs to portray in order to encourage businesses to locate their offices in the area, which is essential in promoting investment and jobs in the area. Furthermore, the location of the site may also deter future developers from seeking to build additional housing in the area due to the potential impact of re-sell prices and may also damage the towns image as a key tourist destination. Whilst acknowledging the legal and moral obligation of the council to provide appropriate accommodation for the traveller community, this cannot be done at the expense of the overall local population, who will not be well served by this choice of location.
3) Finally, I believe it is the duty of the council to provide a decent standard of accommodation to all the people it looks to locate, which cannot be demonstrated in the current proposal. Locating families next to a sewage works, in a flood plain and next to a busy road does not to meet the basic minimum standards one would expect. Taking steps to address the issues the proposed site presents in terms of quality of living would be difficult and if possible, would likely come at a high cost - further questioning the commercial viability of the proposal.
I hope that I the points I have raised are acknowledged and even if the proposal for this site isn't rejected, a more robust and transparent consultation process is held where the council presents the relative costs/benefits of this site more thoroughly in comparison to the others considered.