Object

Gypsy and Traveller Site Options

Representation ID: 59237

Received: 11/07/2013

Respondent: Mr Barry Doherty

Representation Summary:

Previous experience of Gypsies is entirely negative eg trespass, theft, abuse and assault.

Identifying so many sites has blighted property values across the District. All houses within a mile of each site are currently unsaleable. Process needs to be quicker.

Two or three isolated sites preferable to scattergun approach adopted.

Understand Council has a duty to make provision but it's the settled Community who actually pay for it all.

Completely unacceptable to parachute very different people into settled Communities and having an adverse effect.

Locate sites well away from existing communities and provide the facilities that are needed, at that location. Should compensate any nearby neighbours.

Full text:

I have an interest in opposing the proposed new sites in two parts of the District as I own a property in Barford and also own a property in Hatton and would be directly affected by the proposed sites in Barford, Budbrooke and Beausale.

My experience of Gypsies has been entirely negative, having been subjected to them walking onto my property, going into back gardens, raking through skips and generally poking around looking for scrap metal to steal. When challenged they become abusive and on one occasion I was assaulted, resulting in the Police being called.

If the Council had decided simply to blight property values across the District it could not have done a more effective job than by designating these many sites for consultation. All houses up to a mile from the proposed sites are currently unsaleable until a decision is made.

Two or three isolated, potential sites should have been identified rather than the scattergun approach which has been taken which has caused such damage.

I know that the Council has a duty to make provision for a number of pitches, but traveller rights always seem to "trump" those of the settled Community who actually pay for all of the Council services and cannot avoid HMRC.

It is completely unacceptable to parachute this group of people with very different values into settled Communities, thereby adversely affecting the lives of many tax-payers for the convenience of these groups. Let us not shy away from the adverse effect that they always have on neighbours.

As provision must be made for them then locate it well away from existing communities and provide the facilities that are needed, at that location. Purchase at full market value, plus removal expenses, all nearby properties where the owners wish to move away, or compensate them properly for loss of value if they choose to stay.

In any event, speed up this process to minimise and bring to a halt the state of "limbo" into which the Council has plunged large numbers of people.

As I understand that these objections are published I do not wish my address to be available publicly but can be contacted on this e mail address.