BASE HEADER

I would like to object to this site for a variety of reasons. Firstly I object to the criteria detailed above and those used in the published selection documentation, which if one was being cynical, appear to have been deliberately altered from those consulted upon for previous sites in this process, to best suit this site and hence increase the chance of forcing this site into the local plan. The most obvious omission would be that for avoiding tensions with existing communities, which is clearly not the case with this site. Further, this site did not form any part of the original consultation process and it now seems very unusual that the council has chosen to shoehorn this proposal in with an employment land venture. This venture seems unnecessary given the large areas of employment land currently lying vacant on the opposite side of the road at Tournament fields.

I have concerns due to the lateness and speed with which this alternative site has been proposed and cannot understand how a full and proper due diligence process has been undertaken for the council to propose this site.

Had this site been included as part of the consultation process, I have no doubt that the same objections which have seen a variety of other sites rejected would have been raised for this location. It is my opinion that some of the reasons cited for the rejection of other sites in the consultation process apply to this site also. These include;

* The location of the site will not reduce tensions between the travelling community and settled community as witnessed by the current petitioning and social media campaign against this site from local residents

* There seems little regard for the protection of local amenity and local environment; given that the local GPs and schools are already extremely busy with added pressure imminent as further houses are built on the Chase Meadow estate. Has sufficient consultation been undertaken with local health managers and schools, particularly given that the new dispensary GP surgery objected to the nearby site adjacent to Warwick racecourse?

* Significant impact on residential uses

* Access off busy road

* Noise issues from M40 and A46

* Location adjacent to a sewage treatment plant is hardly conducive to a good quality of life or habitat in which to live and raise children, has appropriate monitoring of air and noise levels been undertaken to satisfy the guidance set down by the government planning policy?

*The identification of this site has clearly not been undertaken by working collaboratively or fairly (as directed by the Government's planning policy for traveller sites) with the local community or businesses due to the lack of consultation with regard to its selection. Nor does the council appear to have complied with the guidance for early and effective engagement with the local community given the decision to select this site with no prior public publication of its consideration for selection

The above points, speed with which this site seems to have been chosen/made public and the lack of consultation will no doubt lead to appeals and objections to the Secretary of State should the council proceed with the selection of this site as part of the local plan.

I would be grateful if you could take the above points into consideration and I hope that this site is not incorporated in the local plan.