Testun llawn:
Dear Sirs,
I write to voice our objection to the proposed 'gypsy' and travellers sites near Harbury.
1. There is a strong case for providing so called gypsies or itinerants with a place to stay only because they have nowhere to go and it is a big problem moving them on constantly and clearing up afterwards. The point is that in 2013 it is no longer viable or reasonable to expect to exist in this way living in caravans with no proper employment. Do you really believe these people survive on seasonal work such as was found in times gone by? We can only guess how they make their money but it is a fact that they pay no taxes and as such do not subscribe to the way of living sponsored by society in the main. Therefore the way of life should be discouraged and we would prefer to pay for housing benefit similar to any other under privileged peoples. If people decide to ride horses down the M40 we would hardly construct a lane specifically for them, it would be unreasonable in 2013 to allow this practice and there is little difference to wanting to set up communes in caravans.
2. The proposed sites are clearly prime residential locations, sited in open countryside but being within easy reach of local amenities and Leamington Spa. There is a live and let live theory but this is clearly far too biased towards one side. You have to be conscious of the developed society and how the majority have sought to establish the communities we live in. That is that more often than not the benefits of any particular location are linked to the cost of living there, mainly by the cost of the housing. This is typical of any human society founded on trade, be it money or any other currency. Why should the sites be in such highly valued locations, when ordinary people strive to achieve similar with such struggle? This is not snobbery or a 'nimby' attitude just plain laws of living which are seemed to be circumnavigated through some misplaced conscience or 'do good' feelings. Why should we not only sponsor the facilitation of sites, but also face the reduction in value of our most significant asset? It is a plain fact that the sites will cost some people hundreds of thousands of pounds and as a percentage of wealth even the 'gypsies' would object to such a plan. How can you expect people to continue to pay such high amounts of council tax dependent on their chosen style of living (ie. greater value apportioned to housing versus other asset forms - cars, jewellery etc.) when there is a section of the community paying nothing? There are plenty of suitable locations along the M40 corridor where the impact would be less or even negligible. What it seems is that the benefits for the 'gypsies' have been put way above the sacrifices of the society as a whole. Any site should not be within 1 mile of a residential property and should not impact on another community in any way.
In conclusion we object to the practice of providing any site, but can see the need in the circumstances. Given the need we object to the extremely biased and unnecessarily privileged locations being proposed.