It would be great to be able to offer sessional youth work support to the young people on the sites. The Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs would be interested in offering such support if funded by say the Community Levy

Based on the provided sites, I believe this site would be suitable based on the close proximity of major services and meet the required criteria. Infrastructure requirements within this area would be better suited than others within the study and is in close proximity of other community services needed.

Infrastrucre in place for additional traffic. access off Industrial estate willhave less impact on residential areas, but is well located for schools and doctors etc..

I appreciate the wide variety of sites to be considered. I understand that no body wants the sites near them, although they come locally to most people anyway. I feel the sites that are furthest from established homes are the best. From my perspective, GT15 is an absolutely terrible option. The ones on Harbury Lane, whilst one would prefer they were not to be there, would be more palatable in this location. Ideally, GT01 is the option I would vote for if I had a choice.

GT01 Land adjacent to the Colbalt Centre:
Due to existing development, access would likely have to be taken from an existing private access
road. Without confirmation as to whether this would be permitted, the Highway Authority cannot
recommend a good place to gain access to the site from the existing Public Highway.
GT02 Land at Warwickshire Exhibition Centre:
If access were to be taken from the Fosse Way a new access would need to be created a minimum
215m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would also need to be 2.4m x 215m in
both directions. It is considered that an access to meet these requirements could potentially be
achieved. If access were to be taken from the A425, a new access would need to be created a
minimum 160m from the existing roundabout. Visibility from the access would need to be 2.4m x
160m in both directions. Although potentially achievable the removal of a significant amount of
vegetation/hedgerow may be required.
GT03 Land at Barnwell Farm:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access. The existing access to Barnwell Farm is considered to be a
good location however; cutting back/removal of hedgerow is likely to be required in order to achieve
the required level of visibility.
GT04 Land at Harbury Lane:
The Highway Authority would not recommend access taken directly off the Fosse Way in this
location. If access is taken from Harbury Lane, it should be at least 160m from the existing crossroad
junction with visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m in both directions. You should look to avoid position a
new access opposite an existing access.
GT05 Land at Tachbrook Hill Farm, Banbury Road:
Access taken from the A452 would require visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m. Use of the existing
Tachbrook Hill Farm access would not be recommended as it is sited opposite an existing junction
and it would not be recommended to locate the access any closer towards the Motorway junction. If
access were to be created northwest of the existing Tachbrook Hill Farm access it should be done so
in advance of the existing traffic calming features. Access from Mallory Road would not be
recommended. It should also be noted that there may be issues regarding forward visibility due the
existing vertical alignment of the road. Forward visibility to match visibility from the access would be
required at all sites (160m in this instance).
GT06 Land at Park Farm:
Access created from the A425 would need to have visibility of 2.4m x 215m in both directions. The
existing access to Park Farm is likely to meet this standard. If a new access is to be created it is
unlikely that an access could be created any closer to the existing roundabout without the
requirement for removal of hedgerow/trees. Any access created North West of the Park Farm access
must adhere to the required visibility standards. The access should not be created in proximity of the
existing layby on the A425.
GT07 Land at Smiths Nurseries Stoneleigh Road:
Access from the Stoneleigh Road is unlikely to be achievable due to visibility restrictions unless taken
from Smiths Nurseries. Even then it would have to be demonstrated that the proposed site was
unlikely to generate significantly more vehicle movements than the existing development (and that
it has not caused a Highway safety/operation issue). From Coventry Road (within 30mph limit) it may
be difficult to achieve access due to proliferation of existing accesses. Splays of 2.4m x 70m would be
required in both directions.
GT08 Depot to west side of Cubbington Hill Farm:
Leicester Lane is subject to a speed limit of XX. An access with visibility splays of 2.4m x xxxm would
therefore be required with equal corresponding forward visibility. It is considered that this should be
achievable at this site.
GT09 Land to North East of M40:
The A452 is subject to a speed limit of XX. The Highway Authority considers that achieving an access
to standard from the A452 would be difficult due to road alignment. Creation of an access onto the
Warwick By-Pass would not be supported.
GT10 Land at Tollgate House & Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre:
Gaining access from the B4100 is considered to be difficult due to existing accesses/lay-bys which
makes it difficult to find a suitable location for creation of a new access. Access from Oakley Wood
road is considered unsuitable and an access with required visibility standards unlikely to be
achievable.
GT11: Land at Budbrooke Lodge Racecourse and Hampton Road:
Land west of Warwick Racecourse - Access from the point of the existing access for Budbrooke
Lodge should be feasible. You would need to ensure that visibility splays of 2.4m x 160m can be
provided in both directions due to the access emerging onto a 50mph section of Highway. There
already appears to be a reasonable pedestrian connection to this point too.
GT12: Land at Westham House, Westham Lane
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
GT13: Kites Nest Lane:
Kites Nest Lane and Brownley Green Lane are subject to a derestricted speed limit and although it is
acknowledged that vehicles are unlikely to be travelling at 60mph on either of these roads, a speed
survey would be required to establish the level of visibility required and this would ultimately
determine whether an access was feasible or not. In addition both roads are narrow and, depending
on the size of the site, some level of localised widening may be required.
GT14: Warwick Road, Norton Lindsey:
Warwick Road is subject to a derestricted speed limit and visibility from the existing access does not
meet standards of 2.4m x 215m. If it can however be demonstrated that vehicle movements from
the proposed development will not exceed that which could be generated by the existing permitted
development (and that the existing access has not caused a highway safety issues), use of the
existing access may be acceptable.
GT15: Land to east of Europa Way:
This section of the A452 is subject to a speed limit of 50mph and accordingly, splays and forward
visibility of 160m must be provided. It is considered that, with removal of vegetation, this should be
achievable at some point along the boundary line shown.
GT16 Land West of A429 Barford:
The by-pass onto which the proposed site off which Westham Lane adjoins, is subject to a
derestricted speed limit. Accordingly visibility splays of 215m in both directions must be provided.
This should be achievable. Westham Lane also narrows after a certain length and accordingly,
depending on access location and size of site proposed this may require widening. In addition if this
site was of interest, the Highway Authority would seek further comment from our transport
operations team to determine whether there was any capacity reason as to why a site could not be
served off the bypass.
If access directly from the bypass is proposed this would be subject to splays of 2.4m x 215m being
achieved and an access road being constructed to meet highway standards (subject to no objections
being raised from Warwickshire transport operation team about the creation of a new access onto
the bypass).
GT17: Service area West of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT18: Service area East of A46:
The A46 is under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency and not the Local Highway Authority.
Accoringly, Warwickshire County Council would have no comment to pass other than recommending
that further comment be sought from the Highway's Agency.
GT19: Land off Birmingham Road, Budbrooke (Oaklands Farm):
The access would be taken from a section of highway subject to a 40mph speed limit. Accordingly,
splays of 2.4m x 120m should be achieved and 120m forward visibility be achieved on both
approaches. The Highway Authority considers that this visibility is likely to be achievable at some
point along the proposed site boundary.
GT20 Land at Junction 15 of M40:
The B4463 is subject to a derestricted speed limit and accordingly, visibility of 2.4m x 215m must be
provided unless a speed survey can demonstrate actual speeds are less than this. The Highway
Authority considers that it is unlikely that visibility for a new access can be achieved without a speed
survey being undertaken. Access should not be taken closer than 215m from the roundabout
junction.
Disclaimer
Please note that the site assessments have been made following desktop studies only using various
software packages. It is likely that all comments accurately reflect the requirements of each site
however, in some circumstances the speed limit may have changed. For reference please note the
following basic visibility requirements set against posted speed limits:
Derestricted/60mph - 2.4m x 215m, Forward visibility of 215m.
50mph - 2.4m x 160m, Forward visibility of 160m
40mph - 2.4m x 120m, Forward visibility of 120m
30mph - 2.4m x 90m*, Forward visibility of 90m*
*absolute maximum - splays of 70m & 43m could also be applied depending on site location.

I am writing to strongly object to the Development Strategy planned for Baginton Village.

1. Gateway

The Gateway is an unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt land with no very special circumstances. It will have a very great affect on the quality of life within the village and cause an unnecessary increase in traffic through the village particularly Mill Hill. The bridge in Mill Hill will certainly not be able to cope with the increase number of buses proposed to service the commercial businesses planned. There is plenty of commercial land around this area that could be used for commercial development without impacting on our rural community.

2. Housing

Although, I welcome the development of new housing within the village particularly affordable housing, I totally disagree with the proposal put forward of 70-90 houses, a more realistic number would be 20. The Local Pan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages, but should take into account individual village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of Baginton Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used in preference to the proposals in the consultation document.

3. Gypsy & Traveller site Options

The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 & G107) are an inappropriate Development of the Green Belt. The consultation documents identify major negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of several sewage treatment works, with the associated noise, light and air quality effects.

The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors, schools, hospitals etc and there is poor public transport provision. Access from the sites to the village along the grass verges are unsuitable for pushchairs, wheelchairs etc.

There are already three sites within a few miles of Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore, the proposed sites do not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing development across the District".

The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact on a rural business by forcing them to give up part of their land for such a development, when there are more suitable sites.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable options to the two proposed in the Baginton parish as they are outside the Green Belt, they also have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a rural businesses and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

I moved to Baginton with my family nearly 3years ago at considerable financial costs so that I and my family could enjoy the benefits of living within a rural community. Since moving here the village of Baginton has continually had to fight Warwick District Council over a number of proposed developments. Can you please take into account that this is a village and not an overspill from Coventry and I would very much like to enjoy the rural setting we now enjoy!!!

Dear Sir

Gypsy & Traveller site options - G101 & G107

I feel compelled to write to you as I feel very strongly and would like to object about the proposed above sites that is planned on existing Greenbelt land in Baginton Village.

I cannot understand why beautiful countryside should be lost when there are existing plots of land already in existence that would equally serve the same purpose. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Why do we have clear legislation that is there to protect greenbelt land when developments such as this are to be allowed to be proposed without due consideration for the impact on many areas such as wildlife and local businesses.

There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in Baginton surely this would be disproportionate and would not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of distributing development across the district.

One of the proposed sites is on land privately owned and home to a thriving nursery business which provides employment to many local young people. It is totally unacceptable to force them to give up part of their land when there are more suitable sites.

I do believe the proposed sites would have a negative impact on what is a strong community spirited village, it cannot be ignored that such developments have an adverse effect on local businesses which in turn would eventually lead to the decline of village life.

I urge Warwick District Council to rethink this area for proposed traveller sites.

I would like to raise concerns about proposals in WDC consultation document which will adversely affect the rural village community of Baginton.

Gateway.

This is an inappropriate and unsustainable development. There are no special circumstances for the use of Green Belt land for this proposed development. Hence the local plan should not include references to the Gateway.


Traveller sites

There are already three traveller sites near to those proposed in Baginton and hence the proposal of sites in Baginton does not fulfil the strategy of distributing developments across the district.

The proposed traveller sites in Baginton represent inappropriate development of Green Belt Land.

The proposed sites are not in easy reach of facilities such as schools, doctors, hospitals etc and public transport links are poor. Access to the village from the proposed sites has no suitable footpath.

The proposed Stoneleigh Road site is that of a local rural business. This business would be adversely affected by forced loss of land and this is unacceptable when there are other more suitable sites available.

Alternative proposed sites South of Warwick have better access to facilities, would lead to a more even distribution of sites across the district, would not lead to the loss of green belt land and would not have an adverse impact on a local rural business. Therefore these sites would be more appropriate that those proposed in Baginton.


Housing

The proposal of building 70-80 new houses in Baginton is a disproportionate increase for the size of the village. The local plan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages but should take into account village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of our Parish Plan and Housing needs Survey identify a maximum of 20 houses and this figure should be used in
preference to the proposals in the consultation document.

I urge you to reconsider these proposals.

I feel I must write and show my objections for the proposed Local planning development strategy for Baginton village.

gypsy / travellers site.

* The size of this site will result in it becoming a dominant feature within the village,
this will increase demand for the already over stretched amenities.

* There will be a significant number of children from the site requiring school places within the
Baginton catchment area, where it is already difficult for the Baginton children to obtain their
first choice school.

* The link between gypsy / traveller site and crime is hotly debated, however it's mere perception
Will cause the value of property within the area to decrease.

* With the Coventry and Warwickshire gateway been given the go a head, this is far too much
development for a small community, causing a reduction in the quality of life for both travellers
and current residence alike.

* There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of the proposed site at Baginton.
Therefore the proposed site at Baginton will not satisfy the local plan strategy of
distributing development across the district.


Housing.

* The 70-90 houses proposed for Baginton is an unacceptable increase for a small community.
The council should take into account village desires under the localism act,
the outcome of our parish plan and the housing needs survey should be used.

Dear sir/madam

I write regarding the proposed location of gypsy and traveler sites in warwickshire, as outlined in the new local plan.

Points made on government guidance are referenced from "Standard Note - Gypsies and Travellers: campsites and trespass - id: SN/SC/1127 published by House of Commons Library, author Christopher Barclay - available online (www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01127.pdf)

Government advice states "A Gypsy camp site is no longer appropriate development within the Green Belt." The proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in Baginton (G101 & G107) are innapropriate development in the green belt.

The noise generated from the plains flying more or less directly overhead until late at night, combined the noise and light from the airport and associated business park, combined with the smells in the vicinity of the sewage treatment works, will lead to a reduced quality of life for the residents at the proposed sites.

Government guidelines state planning should address under-provision. There are three traveler sites within a few miles of G101 & G107 - at siskin drive, brandon lane, and oxford road which already meet such provision. The proposed sites do not satisfy the local plan strategy of "distributing development across the district".

There is insufficient provision for local doctors, schools, or hospitals, and current facilities are already sufficiently overcrowded that the residents of Baginton have difficulty obtaining such services. This does not match the government guidelines that suitable accommodation "from which travelers can access education, health, welfare, and employment infrastructure".

The proposed site on stonly road is on private grenbelt land used by a local business. It is unacceptable to damage that business' ability to be profitable by forcing them to give up their land to a development.

The proposed site G101 is located in an area that will be used by the coventry and warwickshire gateway development. This development proposes to deliver many thousands of jobs by your own estimates, and would be of greater benefit to the entire community than its use as a gypsy and traveler site.

The alternative sites proposed to the south of warwick distrcit are preferable to G101 and G107 as they are not on green-belt land, have access to better facilities, would not have an adverse impact on local businesses, and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

The governments own statement is "to reduce tensions between settled and traveler communities in plan-making and planning decisions". After having many discussions with people affected locally, I can confirm that the manor in which the consultation has run has served to increase tensions between settled and traveller communities. I have heard many overt suggestions of intimidation and violence as a direct result of these discussions. (actions i personally neither support nor condone) I would strongly suggest further measures to be taken immediately in order to better inform local residents, in order to calm these tensions.

Dear Sirs

We wish to lodge our objections to some of the proposals of Warwick District Council in their consultation documents, as they adversely affect our rural village community.

Gateway:
The Gateway is unsustainable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt with no very special circumstances. We support Baginton Parish Councils' request that the Local Plan should remove all references to the Gateway and amend all its projections accordingly.

Housing:
The 70-90 houses proposed for Baginton is unacceptable and disproportionate increase for the village. The Local Plan must not dictate the type of housing development to villages, but rather should take into account village desires under the Localism Act. Outcomes of our Parish Plan and Housing Needs Survey should be used in preference to the proposals in the consultation document, i.e. a maximum of 20 houses.

Gypsy/Traveller Site Options:
* The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (Ref G1010 & G107) are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The consultation documents identify manor negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of several sewage treatment works, with the associated noise, light and air quality effects.
* The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors, schools, hospitals etc. And there is poor public transport provision.. Access from the sites to the village along the grass verges are not suitable for pushchairs, wheelchairs or use by the inform
* There are already tree traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore the proposed sites d not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of 'distributing development across the district'.
* The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact on a rural business by forcing them to give up part of their land for such development, when there are more suitable sites.
* The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable options to the two proposed in Baginton as they are outside Green Belt, have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a rural business and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

With reference to the above Warwick District Council proposal I would like to register my objection in the very strongest terms.

I understand that the council is required to meet the accommodation needs of the Gypsy community but it is hard to think of a more unsuitable location for this project.
Have the planning committee not asked the simple obvious questions concerning this site? Questions about access, doctors, hospitals, schools, public transport and other facilities needed by the traveller community but glaringly deficient at this location.
Have the Planning Committee not visited the site to note, among other details, that Baginton village already has a Traveller site, at Siskin Drive.

It would not require much effort to continue this list of reasons of the unsuitability of Baginton for this project and I am sure more of my fellow residents will have already informed you of them.
However, the most outrageous part of this proposal concerns the private land on Stoneleigh road which includes a local nursery. In the present economic climate it is completely unacceptable to propose anything that will effect local employment. The Nursery is a much needed economic asset and a valuable source of employment in the area. Any proposal that places a threat to this successful business is shameful.

I should be pleased if you would register my vote AGAINST the proposed gypsy and traveller (ref G101 & G107) as I consider them to be in appropriate development in the green belt.

Dear sirs,

We wish to register our objections to the local plans G101 & G107.
Baginton does not have the infrastructure, medical facilities or schools to support a traveller site.

We already have three sites within a small area and cannot sustain another. Businesses would be adversly affected especially Smiths Garden Centre.
The Intransit trucks have problems getting through the village,as it is, which will be compounded dangerously so should this go ahead.

P. S. we are in full agreement with our democratically elected Parish Council.

Dear Sirs please take note of my objection to the proposed Gypsy Traveller site Options.
For the reasons mentioned Below;

* The proposed Gypsy and traveller sites in Baginton (ref G101 & G107) are
inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The consultation documents
identify major negative effects as to the sites being located on Green Belt land
and being adjacent to Coventry airport, the industrial park and in the vicinity of
several sewage treatment works, with the. associated noise, light and air quality
effects.
* The proposed sites are not within easy reach of local facilities such as doctors,
schools, hospitals etc and there is poor public transport provision. Access from
the sites to the village along the grass verges are not suitable for pushchairs,
wheelchairs or use by the infirm.
* There are already three traveller sites within a few miles of those proposed in
Baginton at Siskin Drive, Brandon Lane and Oxford Road. Therefore the
proposed sites do not satisfy the Local Plan Strategy of "distributing
development across the District".
The proposed site in Stoneleigh Road is on private land, which includes part of
the local nursery. It is unacceptable to adversely impact a rural business by
forcing them to give up part of their land for such a development, when there are
more suitable sites.
* The alternative sites proposed to the south of Warwick district are preferable
options to the two proposed in Baginton parish as they are outside the Green
Belt, have better access to facilities, would not have an adverse impact on a
rural business and would not lead to an over-concentration of sites in one area.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am writing to you this morning to express my concerns and dissatisfaction regarding your proposals for Gypsy and Traveller Sites in and around the Warwick area - in particular, the proposed site on Hampton Road by the racecourse.

I am a resident in Warwick Chase estate, located extremely near to this proposed site. I have only recently moved into the area in the last year and have a small family (my daughter was born last October).

Whilst I'm extremely happy with the local facilities in terms of their close proximity and convenience, I can already see an impact on surrounding roads, Doctors and local facilities due to the large number of people moving into the area. This area has undergone significant development over the last few years and there is definitely an overburden on the area.

I'm particularly concerned regarding schools too - it won't be long before I send my daughter to school and I am already concerned about how difficult this may become due to the higher number of applicants.

I'm extremely concerned that allowing these sites will only exacerbate the issues I've just outlined. I believe the local infrastructure will simply not be able to support one or more of these sites and after reading your planning policy, this appears to be in direct conflict with the policy.

Also, the proposed site on Hampton Road is extremely close to green belt land and sits within part of the flood plain. I believe green belt land should be protected where possible and also, any further building work / hard standing within that area is likely to exacerbate the current issues with the flood plain and put that area at further risk - severely impacting us local residents.

Taking all of these reasons into account, I strongly object to your proposals and would ask that you take serious thought in re-considering / reviewing your original proposals.

After having talked to many people I know living locally, I can assure you their sentiments are the same - there is an overriding feeling of strong objection and this is shared widely across the local area.

Objection to the number of proposed allocations of gypsy and traveller sites in unspoiled Warwickshire countryside

References:
1. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, Communities & Local Government, 2113371, March 2012
2. WDC Local Plan, Sites for Gypsies and Travellers, June 2013

Reference 1, Paragraph 14 states that traveller sites in Green Belt areas are inappropriate.
Of the proposed sites identified in Reference 2 for consideration as gypsy and traveller sites, 40% are within Green Belt areas. These are GT01, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. 40% is stretching the spirit of Reference 1 and this is objected to. The remaining 60% are mostly away from schooling and health centres except GT16. GT16 has no proper drainage as yet. Drainage or not, I would be concerned about the river regarding water quality downstream of this proposed site. Ditto GT01, GT09 and GT10.
If travellers meet the definition of a traveller given in Annex 1 of Reference 1, how does WDC know whether the travellers are "within their area"? Some explanation would be welcomed.

There are 20 proposed gypsy and traveller sites in one small corner of Warwickshire. Paragraph 23 of the Government Planning Policy (Reference 1) states that local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside. I object to Reference 2 in its entirety because it very much appears to be in direct conflict with the Paragraph 23 of this Government Planning Policy.

End.

It is with regret and total disbelief that I find myself writing to you to complain about the above proposed development.

What on earth are you thinking of? We are a small village set in Green Belt land, already destined to be decimated and dominated by the Gateway development (I will copy you in on a letter soon to be sent to our MP regarding manipulation of planning committee members,which resulted in a dubious scheme being passed!). There is already a Gypsy/Traveller camp sited at Siskin Drive, on the perimeter of Baginton, which I may add bears NO resemblance whatsoever to the photograph of the proposed site depicted in the booklet available via WDC. If you drive past Siskin Roads camp, you will see that it is full of 4 wheel drive vehicles and vans, rubbish, children and dogs. Not the 'haven' depicted in your booklet!

The size of the proposed camp on the map, actually looks larger that the size of Baginton village, which would mean their community taking over the existing Baginton community. We have a limited local bus service, our children have to be transported to 'out of village' schools plus there are no medical facilities. The extra number of people who would end up living in a camp that size would put an enormous strain on local facilities resulting in, at the very least, extra sewage and refuse collection services having to be initiated.

And lastly, the proposed site already houses a thriving local business which has been a large part of Baginton for over 60 years. When the Gateway Development mentions 'potential' local employment, what about the fact that there are already many people employed at Smiths Nursery, who could have their livelihood jeopardised by the arrival of yet another unwanted, new development. None of these new proposals will enhance the lives of the people of Baginton, living in this beautiful Green Belt area. Instead it is just another nail in the coffin of rural communities.

It beggars belief that this site has been chosen over numerous other Brown Belt land sites which are more appropriate in size and position for this type of development.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see-attached

see-attached

see attached

see-attached