BASE HEADER

I would like to lodge my objections to the proposed traveler site on Birmingham Road (reference GT19).

Impact on local infrastructure and facilities:

For some reason that is entirely unclear, this consultation process is being carried out independently of the proposed development of the circa 100 houses in the field opposite. Surely, the combined effects of both proposed developments on the local infrastructure and facilities should be taken into account simultaneously, for example the impact on the roads, local schools and utilities.

The Birmingham Road is fast moving and the extra traffic would undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the traffic flow and safety. In fact, this road is prone to flooding, there is already considerable rush hour congestion and it has been the scene of two fatalities recently.

The site is intended to be located between a National Trust canal and a busy road, so it seems clear that the safety of the children would be at risk. Have the National Trust been consulted on environmental effects this could have to the popular site?

The local school system is already under pressure and suffering very poor results. For example, I understand that Budbrooke school has recently gone into special measures. Surely, an influx of children, many of whom are likely to require more attention, will not help this situation and I presume no extra funding is provided for support.

Suitability of the proposed site:

The proposed site is on Green Belt land. It is my understanding that central government require there to be genuinely 'exceptional circumstances' to build on Green Belt land. I have seen no evidence of such 'exceptional circumstances' in this case.

It is also my understanding that there is inconsistency in the criteria applied for this proposal as compared to those applied in rejecting other development proposals. For example, the proximity of the site to the canal should be one ground for rejecting this proposal as it has been with other development proposals. In fact, the close proximity to the canal would pose a danger to the children residing on the site. In addition, I understand that a previous request for storing caravans on the proposed site was rejected by Warwick District Council, yet for some unknown reason it is now deemed appropriate for travellers.

It is also entirely unclear why this site is considered more appropriate than the Kites Nest site rejected recently, which is very much more isolated and not on a main road. The proposed site, on the other hand, would be very visible from the road and from the canal, so occupants would be overlooked.

I also understand that the Kites Nest site was actually owned by the development proposer, while this proposal would involve the use of tax payer funds in a compulsory purchase of the land. This seems entirely unfair to both the taxpayer and indeed the landowner, particularly as the proposed site puts his longstanding businesses at risk and reduces the value of the remaining land.

In fact, does this not expose the council to a claim for compensation?

Consultation period:

As a final point, this consultation is being carried out very rapidly and follows recent statements to some residents that there would be no such proposals in the foreseeable future. This consultation appears to compromise the rights of residents under the new Localism Bill of 2011, and is completely inconsistent with the time scale for the provision of the traveller site, which is stated to be as long as five years.

I should be grateful if the above points are taken into account when considering this proposal.