BASE HEADER

I am keen to put on record my objection to the GT02 proposal with respect to Sites for Gypsies and Travellers. My objection is centred on three distinct key elements relating to this matter.

1. Impact on the Local Economy

No 'Local Plan' should bring with it such an obvious dis-benefit to both the local and wider Warwickshire community, which would clearly be the result of putting the GT02 proposal into effect. The closure of an established business, together with the 'knock-on effect' within the wider community will in itself remove jobs, some of a temporary nature which could otherwise provide employment for members of the traveller community.
The Warwickshire Exhibition Centre is capable of expanding their business within Warwickshire, bringing increasingly valuable revenue from visitors from throughout the UK, into the whole Warwick/Kenilworth/Leamington triangle. At a time when Warwickshire has seen exhibition space closed and threatened with closure by the National Government's stated plans involving HS2, the need for this facility to continue to function is essential.

2. Travel

The permitted vehicle speed along the Fosse Way remains at 60 mph, the fastest legal speed applicable to a single carriageway in a rural environment. Given the volume of traffic using the Fosse Way, particularly at peak times (LRJ, Gaydon), but also throughout the day, adding significant additional traffic and pedestrian movements into this environment would seem to be illogical given the Fosse Way's record as a high risk travel route. Pedestrians requiring access to and from the site in the winter months would be at extreme hazard, particularly as there are no pavements or lighting. The exposure of young children to such a high risk environment would be specifically irresponsible, particularly when more family-friendly options are available.

3. Access to local amenities

Unless the travellers who occupy the site - if this proposal was to go ahead - wished to occupy the front row at their own Annual Traveller Convention at the WEC, there are no local amenities. No shops, schools, doctors surgeries, recreational facilities or any other form of entertainment exist within easy walking distance. All journeys would have to be made by car, resulting in significant environmental impact and thus CO2 implications. Given the current overloading of all existing amenities, schools and medical facilities generally in the Leamington area, travellers would have to travel some distance to obtain the spaces they require, at great inconvenience to themselves and their families.

Overall, the proposal has such a limited degree of acceptablility as to be unconscionable. The prospect of local rate-payers' money being used, in effect, to close down a thriving local business to allow such a scheme to proceed would require hitherto unfound benefits to be found in such number that would defy description.

I trust that you will take my views into account when reaching your decision.