I would like to register my concern over the proposed sites around south Warwickshire in particular to the site for the Stratford Road. I do not feel we have the infrastructure to accommodate this level of community who will put additional burden on local service ie doctors, hospital, education etc especially with the plans for additional housing proposed in the local area which again will put more strain on the above areas, road network especially through town as no measure can elevate the narrowness of the roads without serious risk to historic buildings yet to mention the already polluted air.

It is a know fact the gypsy travellers although council state they want to be part of the community is not the case. They do not conform to working practices that enable a sustainable support to local communities and this is not my prejudice this is fact. The proposals by council/government for 500sqm per pitch is ridiculous and out of proportion to the neighbouring developments which appears to give them beneficial rights over current occupiers of this beautiful town.

Tourism is a major attraction and support to local business and to sustaining the town we love and in my opinion this should be a priority measure over the other proposals and maintain the character of a historic town without the eyesore of gypsy sites where prejudice will always be against them regardless of their intentions.

Therefore in summary I do not feel this is the right decision to our community and resource and strongly oppose the plans

see attached

see attached

We write to inform you of our objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Site on the Stratford Road, Longbridge, Warwick. The site is not in keeping with the surrounding area and will cause a loss of visual amenity, will cause noise and disturbance from its access, occupation and use. Please note our OBJECTION.

I write to express my complete objection to consideration to the possible location of a Gypsy site in close proximity to our large residential estate housing a very large number of law abiding and rate paying families like myself.
There are very many reasons for Rate Paying people objecting to such encampments and we regularly see demonstrations around the country where major difficulties are experienced by honest hard working people.
We also today see a great upswell of voters who now are easily able to replace both councillors and MPs with people who understand that the needs of the people are not to be ignored and where such needs are ignored, then we seek major change in the people who are supposed to represent us.
Who is it that have been obliged to pay for several massive clean ups in the chase meadow area following unlawfull occupation of land adjacent to our estate. Don't bother to answer the question and please don't dare to suggest that such people will adopt different patterns of behaviour where they are given a permanent site.
I would like to point out that the local school where my wife and I previously lived suffered horrendous problems which resulted in many families taking their children away from the school.
Please remember the needs and the wishes of all the present families and rate payers on both Chase Meadow and indeed the surrounding areas before deciding to use the area proposed on the Stratford Road

see attached

My consideration and response is based on the expectation there has been a proper assessment of the significance of heritage assets affected, including their settings ; and the proposals support the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), with one of the core dimensions being the protection and enhancement of the historic environment .

The NPPF requires Local Plans, as a whole, to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. This means ensuring that the sites which it is proposing to put forward for development, will assist in delivering such a strategy and not contradict it.

Employment land allocation on land off Stratford Road, Warwick
This stretch of the Stratford Road is a surprisingly understated and pleasant entrance to Warwick from the M40. It's positive characteristics should be recognised to inform strategic landscaping and moderate highway works which may be required to facilitate any future development.

The proposed allocation is adjacent to Longbridge Manor, a Grade II* listed building with circa 14/15 century origins. The Manor is served to the south by a pleasant 'rural' lane and entrance. Development immediately to the east will affect its significance.

Opposite the site is the Old House and its ancillary barn, both Grade II listed buildings. Beyond to the east are the Warwick Castle Park (Grade 1) and Warwick Conservation Area.

Unfortunately there appears to be no evidence to demonstrate a consideration of how the proposed allocation site contributes to the significance of these designated heritage assets, particularly Longbridge Manor (NPPF Paragraph 129). Neither is there evidence to demonstrate where development may be inappropriate because of its positive relationship to adjoining heritage assets (NPPF Paragraph 157), or how harm might be avoided (NPPF Paragraph 152). The commentary in the SA is rather rudimentary and dismissive, failing to provide an accurate or reasonable assessment of the impact of future development.

The selection of sites for development needs to be informed by the evidence base and the Plan should avoid allocating sites which are likely to result in harm to the significance of heritage assets. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable and justified, in accordance with the NPPF, the Plan should consider how that harm might be reduced and any residual harm mitigated. This could include measures such as a reduction of the quantum of development, avoiding locating development within a particular part of the site, ensuring reinforced strategic landscaping, and limiting the height and volume of development.

Without such evidence Warwick DC cannot assert that the allocation and the amount of development proposed (11.7ha) can be delivered without causing harm to heritage assets of national importance contrary to explicit legislation and national planning policy. Consequently I remain concerned that the Local Plan as proposed is unsound.

It is important to note that:-

- great weight should be given to an assets conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight to the assets conservation there should be (NPPF Paragraph 132);

- special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building (S66, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;

- development will be expected to avoid or minimise conflict between any heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal (NPPF Paragraph 129).

Following the ruling in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council, English Heritage, the National Trust and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 137, considerable importance and weight should be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. Less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. There is a presumption that preservation is desirable.

Further analysis is therefore vital. I would strongly recommend the application of The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, 2011).

Gypsy and Travellers Site on land off Stratford Road, Warwick
The secondary/indirect impact of the proposal should be considered. For example could the 'rural' character of the lane serving the site, and the Grade II* Longbridge Manor, be retained as a consequence? Are intrusive highway works to facilitate the development required? How might these issues be addressed?

Change of proposed uses on Land North of Gallows Hill, Warwick
English Heritage acknowledges the potential for development to the north of Gallows Hill /west of Europa Way, but the implications of a stadium on Castle Park and the intermediate historic landscape must be appreciated, as should the consequences of accommodating additional traffic through the town. I will avoid repeating again the reasons why evidence to inform the principle and form of allocations is required. Needless to say I consider further work is necessary.

I look forward to further updates in due course. Do contact me to discuss any of these matters at your convenience.

I wish to submit a strong objection to the proposed gypsy and traveller site on Stratford Road.

This objection is based on this land being completely unfeasible, unlawful in some cases and quite simply not suitable or viable for family occupation. This is due to a range of factors which I will detail later in this email.

Firstly however, I wanted to emphasise how disappointed and shocked I am about the apparent lack of due process in the proposal of this site for a permanent G&T site. As a local resident, I have been following the progression of the Local Plan proposals, including the positioning of the G&T sites. Stratford Road did not appear in the original list of possible sites, nor was it considered at shortlisting stage. How then can it suddenly appear as the site giving the majority provision for the G&T camp allocation? This is not a clear, robust and transparent process.
Furthermore, the situation has been exacerbated by the lack of clear information available in this consultation period. The information on the website is unclear, patchy and sometimes very misleading. The information given at the consultation surgeries has not been much better with unqualified council staff sent along to field questions that they do not have the expertise to answer. i.e.a housing officer disseminating incorrect information rather than planning staff!
I believe the whole process to be flawed and certainly not within the spirit of a democracy that promotes informed decision making.

I return to the key factors which form the basis of my objection to the proposed Stratford Road site:

Firstly, the unsuitability of the location. The site is next to a major sewerage works which can be smelt from our house nearly a mile away. What will this smell be like much closer and what kind of message does placement next to sewage send to the gypsy and traveller community?
On the other side of the proposed site is the busy and noisy M40 motorway, the impact of which was not fully evaluated by WDC in their limited assessment of noise, under fine weather conditions. To fully investigate the potential noise impact, the area should be assessed over a long period and across differing weather conditions.... especially wet weather when braking tyres can significantly increase the noise pollution.
As if the adverse message sent to the G&T community and the potential environmental and definite air pollution from the sewerage works compounded by the noise pollution from the M40 wasn't enough to make this site unsuitable........ it is also flanked by a river and a very busy A road. Surely this poses significant risks for young children,. The government's own guidelines for the location of gypsy and traveller camps say a safe environment is essential - how can this site be considered safe surrounded by so many hazards?
I believe that the air and water quality was a major issue identified by WDC's own site evaluation, along with the nitrate contamination of the soil. I cannot find any firm, concrete solutions for mitigating any of these risks..... nor are the public being asked to comment on this very serious issue on the hardcopy consultation forms. Are environmental and health and safety concerns being ignored under the pressure of delivering a complete Local Plan?

Secondly, the proposed site is a flood plain (flood zone 2 and 3) and yet the Government's own planning policy for traveller sites says they should not be located in areas where there is a high risk of flooding. Although WDC say this risk can be alleviated, this is speculated theory based on outdated evidence. Even if it could be, the costs associated surely compromise the site's viability.

Thirdly, any development down the A429 will have a major impact on the traffic and safety of the area, It's a very busy road anyway, with some very dangerous bends. I understand that Severn Trent Water will not give access across their land so the only access route to the site currently possible is a narrow farm track. This surely contravenes safety standards, especially considering large trailers and caravans will need access to the site. In the government's good practice guidance for location of G&T sites, there are very clear recommendations that there should be more than one access route, both ideally allowing vehicles to pass but essentially allowing access for emergency vehicles. The guidelines specify that District Authorities should contact the local Fire Authority but I haven't seen a report on the website about the outcome of such an investigation.
Once again, there are probably ways to mitigate the situation (although these are not outlined by WDC).... but once again, these will negatively impact upon both the ability to deliver the site within the time deadlines and also the viability.
Therefore this sounds like yet another example of a cherry-picked, unfair consultation process - i.e. asking for feedback on selective site criteria, yet side-stepping those fundamental issues which actually raise concerns - these feel like they are being glossed over.

I ask that you seriously consider the points made. This is not a suitable or viable site, nor is its proposal the culmination of a fair, transparent assessment and consultation. It is fundamentally flawed at both procedural and policy level. WDC needs to acknowledge this and move onto finding a suitable site, rather than throwing more taxpayers money over justifying this inappropriate, desperate last-minute offering.

The proposal to locate a permanent gypsy and traveller site on land off Stratford Road was considered at last night's Town Council.

You will of course be well aware that local residents do not support the proposal and no doubt those residents have written expressing the reasons for their objection.

The Town Council also consider that this site is not appropriate for residential use and were surprised that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) should consider the land for residential use, given that the LPA had consulted with the Town Council with a view to the land being designated for employment use, a proposal which the Town Council was pleased to support.

Had the land been considered appropriate for residential use then the question arises why it was not included for the purpose in the Draft Local Plan.

The Town Council is well aware that Severn Trent Water has given advice on the extension of the cordon sanitaire around the sewage works, but cannot agree that in planning terms it is all acceptable to site residential development so near to sewage works. Residential amenities would certainly be adversely affected by escaping gases from the sewage works and those malodorous gases are even experienced by residents of Chase Meadow.

Indeed it could be intolerable for residents, for residents either within or outside their homes.

Furthermore residents would also be subject to high levels of noise from the M40 and residents living in mobile homes with limited noise insulation, would suffer even more than residents in conventional housing.

The Town Council also consider that the proximity of the river and the inclusion of the land within the flood plain is reason for the development not to take place. Even if compensatory works can be carried out the Town Council consider it poor planning practice to knowingly locate development in the flood plain, for even if this land is fully protected, flooding will be transferred elsewhere.

The Town Council therefore object to the proposal, and are particularly concerned that whilst the land is generally considered unsuitable for residential use, the District Council should consider the use of the land is appropriate for use as Gypsy and Traveller Site, and that it is quite unacceptable to expect any members of the community to reside in an area which was not considered appropriate for residential use, but rather proposed as employment land.

I find the whole process of your Gypsy and Traveller site allocation deplorable.

During the initial round of consultation it was clear the intent of the council was wholly biased against Warwick, in particular the area of South Warwick and this has remained a constant throughout. One can only suspect that its due to the number of voices/ location of certain councillors.
There was not a single site in the consultation in and around Kenilworth and I yet can't believe there wasn't a single brown field/ prev. industrial site that would be suitable, with the vast majority of proposed sites lumped onto green field sites in West/ South Warwick an area that is already overly developed and suffering badly from the consequences of your previous actions.
You then selected a shortlist and appear since to have decided that only one is suitable.

And yet out of no where you now wish to allocate a large percentage of the pitches onto a site AGAIN in SWW Warwick.

I therefore object on these grounds -

1. There has been ZERO formal public consultation on this proposed site other than two hastily arranged drop ins, which were originally at the most inappropriate times for working families.
2. You appear to be refusing the public a say in the location, by not holding a public meeting and now refusing to attend one arranged by the CMRA and MP Chris White.
3. The Barford sites that were previously shortlisted were removed, with suspicious speed whilst the chair of planning committee is also the representative for Barford and yet did not step aside declaring a conflict of interest - how bizarre / unethical is that!
4. The site selected is totally inappropriate - the single biggest money producer for the area is tourism and yet you want to build a Gypsy site on the main transit route ! A blight on the approach to the 1100 year old historic town of Warwick.
5. The G&T community themselves ask for SMALLER sites which can hold a single family unit, not BIG sites as they recognise these larger sites cause issues, and fraction with the community.
6. You quote Newburgh as being the school, yet Mr Smith the Headteacher has previously and again more recently communicated to you in writing the school is at MAXIMUM capacity and it would be illegal to take a single child into Reception through Years 2, and as each year passes the problem only exasperates.
7, You have not consulted with any of the local business and yet you plan to do this under the guise of additional planning permission for business use. Yet Tournament Fields still has more land for sale. Clearly there is ZERO requirement for additional employment land in this area
8. Proximity to wildlife areas and the proximity to the River Avon.
9. I can't believe any family would want to live in such proximity to both the M40 for noise and danger to children or the ST Sewage plant that producs the most horrendous smells every evening. I live some distance away and it is often quite revolting

And finally as you know local opinion is totally against it, and therefore wholly unlikely to achieve one of your main aims - social integration.

If you decide to send no representation to the meeting at Aylesford on the 4th then you will only play further into the hands of the residents by inflaming the anger and causing more tension. There should be a formal and due period of consultation allowing the tax paying and voting public to have their say and the site transparently duly considered.

see attached

I would like to register my views in response to a gypsy site on the Stratford Road. The road is already exceedingly congested and the area would certainly not be suitable for the large vehicles that would be using the site. More thought needs to go into the location of proposed sites in view of roads, infrastructure, school places and GP surgeries.

I am writing to object against the proposed gypsy and traveller site off the Stratford Road, Warwick. My reasons are:

- I pay £2,500 a year in council tax, sometimes I wonder what for but certainly not too have a gypsy site opposite where I live on Chase Meadow, I struggle to understand how Warwick DC can justify the site here when it affects so many who live in close proximity and the revenue they raise in council tax from this development.

- The site will be an eyesore and magnet for trouble on a very important route into Warwick which heavily depends on leisure and tourism.

- I question if I was in a travellers shoes why I'd want to live next to a sewerage treatment works and river especially as many traveller families have many children.

- Surely local existing businesses nearby like on chase meadow and possible businesses looking to base themselves here on current vacant land will be severely opposed to this option.

I hope you can appreciate my concerns, which I am sure will be shared by many other locals within the area and that you make the appropriate decision upon the location of this proposed site.

see attached

As a Warwick resident I writing to you to raise a number of concerns I have regarding the proposed gypsy/traveller site on the Stratford Road in Warwick. I believe the plan as outlined, currently falls short of a number of the councils own objectives, which I have sought to cover below:
1) I believe a key objective of the council is to ensure that scarce public funds are spent wisely, yet little evidence of the costs of making the proposed site suitable for habitation have been made available. It is my understanding that there has been no confirmation that the site will be made available for consensual purchase and that expensive legal action may be required to trigger a compulsory purchase - which may ultimately prove fruitless for the council. The site is also located in flood plain, which is likely to add to the costs of preparing the site should the purchase be successful. In a fair and open consultation process the forecast costs of this site should be presented against the other options being considered and a national benchmark to reassure the public that their money is being spent appropriately - which has not happened to date. In the absence of this information, the commercial viability of the site is called into question.
2) I believe a second objective of the council is to support local business and to ensure a thriving economy in Warwick, however rather than support this objective, the proposal looks likely to have a detrimental impact on local business. The proposed sites proximity to the Tournament Fields business park and local hotels is out of keeping with the professional image the area needs to portray in order to encourage businesses to locate their offices in the area, which is essential in promoting investment and jobs in the area. Furthermore, the location of the site may also deter future developers from seeking to build additional housing in the area due to the potential impact of re-sell prices and may also damage the towns image as a key tourist destination. Whilst acknowledging the legal and moral obligation of the council to provide appropriate accommodation for the traveller community, this cannot be done at the expense of the overall local population, who will not be well served by this choice of location.
3) Finally, I believe it is the duty of the council to provide a decent standard of accommodation to all the people it looks to locate, which cannot be demonstrated in the current proposal. Locating families next to a sewage works, in a flood plain and next to a busy road does not to meet the basic minimum standards one would expect. Taking steps to address the issues the proposed site presents in terms of quality of living would be difficult and if possible, would likely come at a high cost - further questioning the commercial viability of the proposal.
I hope that I the points I have raised are acknowledged and even if the proposal for this site isn't rejected, a more robust and transparent consultation process is held where the council presents the relative costs/benefits of this site more thoroughly in comparison to the others considered.

I am writing to object to the proposed permanent gypsy and travellers' site, for the Stratford Road in Warwick.

We have personally been affected by some gypsies' behaviour on a permanent site. My husband sold these gypsies some goods which totalled several thousand pounds; however they refused to pay on receipt of the goods. When my husband and one of his colleagues from the small company which my husband worked for, went to retrieve the goods, they were threatened by the gypsies. There were threats to torch the offices of the company if my husband and his company went to the police. As a result my husband lost his job for doing business with them in the first place. This personally brought to me and my family a great deal of hardship as it took my husband a year to find another job.

Another incident was my mother and neighbours clubbed together to have their shared drive covered with tarmac after being given a quote by a gypsy worker. The job was appalling and when they asked to have the drive tidied up, they were told to get lost. They were told to 'like it or lump it'.

It appears that the gypsies have a different code of ethics to the current Warwick residents.

In addition to this, Warwick is a tourist town with lots of overseas visitors. Visitors enjoy the safe atmosphere of the town and enjoy sitting out in the summer in the market square. I am concerned that if there are lots of gypsies around the town, there is a high risk that they will give the town a bad reputation.

In light of this, I am objecting to the proposed permanent gypsy and travellers' site on the Stratford Road.

I am a resident of Chase Meadow, Warwick and I have lived on this estate for nearly 17 years and I am writing to raise my real concerns over the proposed gypsy and traveller site on the Stratford Road, Warwick.

I believe there are a number of reasons why this land/area is unsuitable for the gypsy/traveller community and for us as local residents.

One of my man concerns is the impact a site such as this will have on the local economy. Warwick is a striving tourist town and of particular historic interest and therefore attracts a huge amount of tourism to the are which in turn supports our local economy. I do not believe this site will prove attractive to the people/tourists we are trying to attract.

In addition, we have business park opposite this proposed site - although this is filling up there is still potential for more businesses - however, they are unlikely to consider this site with a gypsy/traveller site in close proximity.

Also, a huge concern is - is the site actually considered a 'safe environment' ? I believe the Government's guidelines on planning for Gypsy & Traveller sites clearly states that it is essential that the location of any such sites will provide a safe environment for the residents. Sites should not be located near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places, as this will obviously have a detrimental effect on general health and well being of the residents - with particular risks for young children.
Surely because of where this site is there must be a high risk to any residents?

In addition, is this area not at a higher risk of flooding - surely you can't consider a site where there is any risk of flooding, again especially where there may be children living?

Finally, I believe that the proposed access to the site is totally unsuitable - certainly not enough space to allow two vehicles to pass each other - it is also located on a very busy and dangerous bend - again another huge risk to the residents of the site and the local community.

I look forward to your response to my objections and I would also like to know why this site wasn't part of the original consultation?

I look forward to hearing from you.

My Husband & I would like to put our strong objections in writing to the proposed Gypsy Traveller site off Stratford Road, Warwick as our objections are detailed below:-

A.) The Chase Meadow estate has grown quite considerably in size since we purchased a new home here in 2007, we moved into the area because of professional reasons and our criteria in searching for a new home was based on various positive reasons, good schools for our children, close links to all Motorway networks for business/work travel, the feel of a community spirit and a comfortable general standard of living everyone seems to adhere to on the estate.

B.) At no point was there any mention of Chase meadow ever being near a proposed Gypsy Traveller site otherwise these houses would have NEVER sold on this basis, Chase Meadow is predominantly a working professional estate with many families paying their taxes with an estimated 70% paying the higher tax bracket, why should these Gypsy Travellers get the same privileges as us residents and not pay any of their taxes?
We paid a premium for our house along with many residents, this will impact on a drop in value in house prices, we will be unable to re-sell, and it is in effect stealing about an average/minimum of £50,000 from people!

What ever happened to morals & ethics of the person/s making these crazy decisions? I doubt any live on CM or in the vicinity??. We are looking forward to the meeting taking place at Aylesford School on Thurs 4 Dec to verbally voice our objections along with many other angry residents.

I am writing to express deep concern and objection to this proposal to allow Gypsies and travellers to reside near to our new home in Warwick. We moved here recently to provide our 2 year old daughter and expectant child with a safe, secure environment to grow up in and this proposal threatens that. The increased threat of anti-social behaviour and crime is unacceptable to us as new parents and I therefore trust you will reconsider this proposal. We are extremely concerned parents who have put our all into making a nice future for our children and this places that in jeopardy.

I am writing to express deep concern and objection to this proposal to allow Gypsies and travellers to reside near to our new home in Warwick. We moved here recently to provide our 2 year old daughter and expectant child with a safe, secure environment to grow up in and this proposal threatens that. The increased threat of anti-social behaviour and crime is unacceptable to us as new parents and I therefore trust you will reconsider this proposal. We are extremely concerned parents who have put our all into making a nice future for our children and this places that in jeopardy.

I am a resident of Woodhouse street Warwick and i am not happy with a gypsy site at all, Warwick is a lovely town and safe to live in, i would not want it spoilt by gypsy's, and if i was a tourist it would put me off being in a town full of gypsy;s they have no respect for people or there properties, i feel trade would suffer and i would feel my home was not safe.

We are writing to oppose the proposed traveller site on Stratford Road.

Warwick is already becoming overcrowded, and the latest approval of 700+ new homes between Warwick and Leamington will make matters worse still. Our infrastructure cannot cope with any more unnecessary cars on the road, and extra people will put pressure on our doctors, healthcare, and on local schools.

Moreover, Warwick is a beautiful and historic town and we should be preserving that charm. Putting a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site on the Stratford Road is too close to existing businesses and residential areas, and is not in-keeping with the area.

In addition, it is a sad fact that gypsy and traveller sites are often associated with noise, mess and increased crime. The M40 is one of the main entrances to the town, and it would be a great shame for the first impression to be damaged.

Please leave Warwick as it is, and refuse this proposal.

see attached

see attached

I write to submit my written objection to the proposed gypsy and traveller site on the Stratford Road site, Warwick.

There are a number of reasons for this objection, and which are detailed below:

1. Air, water and soil quality: It is my understanding that the Council's own Sustainability Assessment identified this as an area of significant concern as it is situated so close to a sewage works and a busy motorway. The resultant noise, air and soil pollution would suggest that this does not appear a suitable location.
2. Flooding: The proposed location is so close to the River Avon that flood risk appears very significant - indeed this area is a designated floodplain within zones 2 and 3 indicating that the area is highly susceptible to flooding. In recent years this land has flooded on multiple occasions and so there would be significant risk of this recurring unless extensive and very costly mitigation programmes are implemented.
3. Access: I understand that access to the site will be via a narrow farm track, which would appear to be totally unsuitable for a number of reasons - (i) it does not provide easy access for emergency vehicles; (ii) it does not allow two vehicles to pass one another and (iii) the location of the junction with the Stratford Road, means that the increased volume of long vehicles turning will introduce significant health and safety risks. This junction is already a known blackspot and so to increase the likelihood and potential severity of incidents in this area would appear foolhardy.
4. Effect on the local economy: Tournament Fields is proposed to be the premier office location in Warwick with the potential to attract a significant number of jobs to the area. However, a large area is still unoccupied and efforts continue to be made to fill these voids. It would appear that any local plan that is highly likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the saleability of this land is therefore also likely to significantly reduce the number of jobs being introduced to the local community - at a time when the region can ill-afford it.

Finally, may I say how disgusted I was that nobody from Warwick District Council accepted the offer to attend the public meeting at Aylesford School on 4th December to consult with the public and take the opportunity to listen and respond to concerns and questions. I felt this was an error as it appeared to make a mockery of the "consultation" process.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached