BASE HEADER

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me this afternoon regarding the GTAA and the Council's proposals.

My particular concern is not with any one of the proposed sites but with the total number of pitches. Having read the GTAA, I do not accept that the evidence base is "robust and reliable" for the following reasons.


1). The authors claim the GTAA to be robust and reliable evidence. They claim in para 1.8 to have sampled aroung 85% of the target population and that it is reasonable to gross up their numbers due to the size of the sample. In other word that 85% is a reasonable sample. This 85% is of the resident households in the district and does not apply to the whole of the data as might be assumed.


2).By far the largest number of pitches proposed is 16 (Row 10 of Table 8.1) being the number of pitches supposedly needed by those involved in "unauthorised encampments" - as opposed to those who have already set up home within the district at "unauthorised developments" . This has not been calculated on the basis of an 85% sample.

3). Turning back to section 5 of the report, the explanation behind this number of 16 can be found and far from being a representative sample of 85% the basis for this number was arrived at by interviewing 15 people (and I note there is no claim to those people being from 15 separate households ) from only 2 separate unauthorised encampments out of 26 encampments. Those 26 encampments , according to the report , had an average of 7.5 vans so a total of around 195 vans. A calculation has been applied to arrive at an estimated number of households involved in unauthorised encampments over the year but only based on the interviews with these fifteen individuals (a figure of 1.3 caravans per household not the 1.7 figure used elsewhere) and further guesses have been made to arrrive at the number of repeat visitors and after deducting this percentage, an estimate has been made of the remainder who would like to stay permanently. This has been taken at 20% but with no robust evidence to support it. Looking at the reasons given for the travellers being in the district it is clear from Table 5.2 that in every single case where a reason has been given, there is no indication whatsoever that there was a need for anything other than a "transit" pitch.


If the number of 1.3 caravans per household cannot be relied on , because it is taken from such a small sample, then the rest of the figures are equally unreliable. If for comparison a multiplier of 1.7 was used (as elsewhere in the report) the average number of households per encampment would come down to 4.4 which would equate to 79 households over the year. Taking 25% from this , being the arbitrary figure applied to estimate repeat visits, would leave 59 seperate households and even making the assumption that 20% of these would require permanent pitches, it can be seen that the figure would then become 59 x 20% = 11.8,which serves to demonstrate the unreliablity of so small a sample.


(If 20% of those households already had a permanent home elsewhere and then, of the remaining 80% a further 20% were provided for by Warwick District Council, if every other District council made the same provision based on a need for 20% of the "passers-through" then unless travellers only ever stopped in four different District Councils in a whole year, the result would be over-provision)


4) If 15 interviewees were taken from 195 vans and each of those vans had 2 adults the percentage sampled would be 3% and at most it could only rise to 18% if it were in fact 15 out of 81 separate households - nowhere near the 85% suggested to be a reasonable sample from which to extrapolate figures.

I should like information as to which two of the unauthorised encampments were interviews done.

5) The additional 6 pitches required in the years 2017 to 2026 are based on a growth figure but with the 16 pitches as aprt of the base line. If the 16 were taken out the provision for growth at the same rate woudl result in a lower number.

I hope that I have explained my reasoning clearly. In conclusion I would say that in my opinion the 16 should be taken out of the need for pitches and that most of this number included in the "transit pitches " need , with the consequent reduction in need for the years post 2016.

For the sake of completeness I should like to add what I said on the phone, that I feel that Warwick District Council's pamphlet is deliberately misleading the "setteld population" by it's depiction of caravan sites, which appear to me more like that of a holiday site and not a permanent "traveller" site.

I am also dismayed to read reports in the press stating that Warwick District Council are "required by Law to provide 31 piches". This seems to be deliberately intended to mislead the public into believing that Warwick District council have no choice in the matter of numbers of pitches.