BASE HEADER

You will no doubt be familiar with the text body below which I have included here given that I whole heartedly support the comments. To include the Kite's Nest Lane site as "an option" is so preposterous that it borders on comic.

In my view the sites proposed which are south of Warwick and Leamington seem to be more appropriate. Having previously lived in Bishops Tachbrook I am aware of the vast expanses of land away from green belt or urbanization that would make for more appropriate Traveller sites.

You will be aware that Lighthorne Heath was earmarked for a major development some years ago (I believe it was blocked ultimately), the reason being of course that it makes good sense to develop on the land between Lighthorne and Leamington/Warwick when the overall picture is looked at.

As for the proximity of local transport, doctors and schools, what is all that about? This is the 21st century, we all have cars, and these people are supposed to be able to travel! Living in Beausale I am 5 miles away from my doctor, my kids school, and we have one bus that stops once a week on a Saturday! It is all just so much boloney

I am a supporter of FRoG. I want to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The "WDC Gypsy and Traveller Sites Options for Consultation" document includes the Green Belt site at Kites Nest Lane in Beausale as an option for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Its inclusion is perverse given that in the past three years two applications for planning permission as a traveller site have been unequivocally refused by the Planning Committee (each time in line with the Council's officers' recommendation). Both those planning decisions have been appealed and both have been resisted by WDC.

The first of those appeals was - following scrutiny at an expensive 7 day long Public Inquiry - unambiguously and entirely refused by the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The second appeal is currently being opposed by the Council.

The inappropriateness of the site is clearly identified in the report of the Inspector from the first appeal and in the submissions made by WDC and FRoG in the context of the current appeal.

Tens of thousands of pounds of local council taxpayers' money has been and is being spent in resisting what has already been determined to be an attempt at wholly inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
My concern is exacerbated by my understanding that potential sites put forward by the local parish council to the Council on 8th April 2013 have not been included as options. I understand that the reasoning for the omissions include because sites have previously been identified as "a potential housing site in the Local Plan", and because sites are "promoted for residential use through the Local Plan and [are] too close to the urban area". It does not appear to me that these reasons are sufficient to justify the sites being excluded as options, particularly when one as obviously inappropriate as Kites Nest Lane is included as an option.

I look forward to hearing from you urgently and receiving your personal assurances that:
* the Kites Nest Lane site was included not because it is deemed suitable, but only because it was suggested in response to a public "Call for Sites";
* the executive shall recommend that the Kites Nest Lane "option" should not be considered as a viable option as a traveller and gypsy site; and
* you shall ensure that the list of sites proposed by FRoG is reconsidered and that they are included in the consultation paper