BASE HEADER

I wish to make representations specifically about proposed Traveller site GT12 and also generally about the manner in which this process has been carried out.

Firstly regarding GT12. I am a resident of Westham Lane. This previously idyllic rural location, which has no mains drainage or mains gas has been blighted over the last few years by the activities of the Council on the basis of the greater good for the many while damaging the lives of we few who live on the west of Barford. We have had our lifestyles permanently damaged, without compensation, by the building of the bypass. Our properties have been devalued by the noise, visual intrusion and increased traffic on the bypass. We do not have the benefit of the usual council road and other utility services, while still paying huge rates due to the alleged value of our properties. Numerous Road Traffic accidents have occurred on the bypass and it is dangerous to get out of the lane onto the bypass. Access to Westham Lane is dangerous for the few vehicles that currently use it. Access for slow-moving articulated and towing vehicles is simply not viable.

Now this latest unlooked-for intrusion of proposing to put permanent sites for "travellers" close to our homes has been dreamt up out of nowhere simply because we live in an isolated rural spot. Does nobody spot the contradiction in terms of "permanent" sites for "travellers"? All of the objections to the many proposed sites point out the increased crime statistics near such sites. It is against the human rights of the fixed community to inflict this intrusion on them.

As the whole site is bounded by the river Avon, containing extensive natural flood plains which do flood every year to a great extent, with concomitant greater danger to temporary homes and caravans, the only viable area which has a reduced chance of flooding is the higher "spine" of land which Westham Lane follows out to our properties. The land falls away on both sides down to the river. The livestock farm has just one field on the south side for the sheep to retreat to and the arable farm floods well up into the crops every year.

Any site will therefore be extremely visually intrusive from either direction on the bypass as it cannot be located far from Westham Lane. There is no vegetation at all providing any screening.

There is no drainage on the West side of Westham Lane. All of our properties have soakaway drainage or septic tanks. This would not be an option for the proposed site, with large numbers of people. The water table is (obviously) very high and this form of sewage/waste disposal would be hazardous to health and would pollute the river.

It would be an inappropriate and exorbitant cost to provide mains drainage to the site, with the bypass between the drainage system and the proposed site, and would not be considered at council expense for our dwellings.

Similarly, there is no mains gas provision for any dwellings on Westham Lane. The huge expense of providing this for the "Traveller" site, due to the bypass, should again be considered unacceptable.

I have previously raised the issue of the Bronze Age remains in many places on the proposed site but apparently this is irrelevant.

These are issues specific to GT12 but I wish to associate myself with most of the objections raised by other objectors about the other sites.

If provision must be found it should be in small, remote, well-screened sites away from other dwellings as far as possible, to prevent the "rights" of "travellers" from trumping the rights of local, settled home owners who have worked to pay for their homes and whose lives and financial futures must not be damaged by this proposal.

Generally, the way the Planning Department has gone about this process should be the subject of an inquiry in itself. Many comments refer to the scatter-gun approach. This lengthy farce has already blighted, and continues to blight, the lives of thousands of home owners. The sites which have been considered but now dropped demonstrate the inadequate work which had been carried out before their inclusion and many of those which remain, such as GT12 are, likewise, immediately identifiable as being unsuitable.

Please acknowledge receipt of this objection and confirm that it will be included in the consultation.