BASE HEADER

Dear Sir/Madam
Proposed Travellers' Sites by Warwick District Council
I have considered the proposed sites for the Travellers' Sites by your Council and, in particular, those numbered GT02, GT03 and GT04.
I am incredulous that Warwick District Council would consider the compulsory purchase of Site GT02, the Warwickshire Exhibition Centre, for this purpose. Apart from the significant impact this proposal would have on the property owner's home it has, potentially, significant implications for the operation of the Exhibition Centre which existence will be at the risk of closure if the scheme proceeds. It is my understanding that the mere suggestion of the local authority compulsorily acquiring this site in order to accommodate Travellers, has been sufficient for the Exhibition Centre to lose prospective business opportunities. The implications are self-evident in the potential loss of forty jobs for the local community being placed at risk. Warwick District Council should factor this issue into its calculations when giving further consideration to this proposal and have regard to the fact that an economic impact assessment submits that the Exhibition Centre contributes more than £2 million to the local economy each year, with knock-on business at risk and this at a time when the country desperately needs local investment.
The site is wholly inappropriate in that its proposed position is on a High Risk travel route with more than 12 serious accidents in the last three years; the adjacent bus stop in on an overgrown verge, with no pavement and is potentially dangerous. There is no path or pavement to walk anywhere and cycling is dangerous on busy commuter routes.
Has the Council considered that in close proximity to this site HS2 Ltd proposes to construct a tunnel portal and a twin-bored tunnel under Long Itchington Wood along with all that entails including a construction site compound, providing the site with office and living and welfare accommodation and parking. The compound would provide administration and support facilities for the majority of the Proposed Scheme in the area. The adjacent areas would be used for the temporary storage of any topsoil stripped as part of the works. A material reprocessing facility would also be located within the site compound for recycling demolition materials and aggregates for re-use (crushing, screening and grading plants). Therefore, in addition to the air pollution generated by the usual vehicles using The Fosse, which will impact upon those living on the site, there will be noise and air pollution arising from the construction works conducted by HS2 Ltd and the proposed tunnel workings will be active 24/7, in addition to the significant number of spoil carrying lorries and other earth moving equipment.
The proposed site is ill placed for access to local amenities in that the nearest doctors' surgery has no capacity for the influx of new patients and the nearest available doctor's surgery almost five miles away with no direct bus service.
The proposed site is listed on the Archaeological Register with Ancient Pottery having recently been recovered and the land is on a historic Toll site from medieval times.
The proposal, which suggests a site for 15 Travellers' families along with caravans, trailers, trucks, vehicles and lorries, etc will be detrimental to the visual amenity of this rural area destroying the visual impact across the valley gateway to Leamington and Warwick not to mention the damage which will be caused to wildlife habitat, and the fact that the site is adjacent to protected ancient woodland. It will simply serve to blight the area and the landscape.
As for the proposed sites GT03 and GT04, these again are sited next to The Fosse and it strikes me that neither they nor site GT02 are in any way appropriate for the occupation of Travellers and their families. They are isolated rural areas and if Travellers sites are needed then it would seem that more suitable locations should be investigated which could offer the benefit of local infrastructure such as shops, schools, doctors and dental surgeries and better access to local transport. It entirely defeats the Council's stated aim to "Promotes peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". The chosen sites cannot be said to be in a community and the itinerant nature of Travellers means their stays will be temporary and not permanent.
I strongly object to Warwick District Council's proposal to compulsorily purchase any of the above sites for its stated purpose. It is unlikely that the Council's aims and objectives will be met by proceeding with this proposal on these sites.