Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 63863
Received: 01/04/2014
Respondent: Gary & Bridget Edwards
My Wife and I are against these sites in their entirety.
We live in Earl Rivers Avenue, Heathcote. The only place the council currently see fit to dump everything. We have first hand knowledge of the Gypsies as they regularly, and illegally, reside on land at the end of our road and so we are fully aware of what a mess they leave each and every time they set up camp.
I would like to ask a couple of questions as you haven't seen fit to give Warwick Gates a presentation.
1/ Who is paying for these sites?
2/ Why do "travellers" need permanent school places? Surely this is a contradiction.
3/ Do travellers have the right to the NHS? What taxes do they pay?
3/ If these sites are allocated does this mean it will stop all the illegal camps that are regularly part of this area?
4/ Are these sites first come first served?
5/ Do the travellers pay for the sites upkeep?
6/ Would you want these people on your doorstep?
7/ Are you actually going to take notice of anything the residents of this area think?
Just so you are aware I live on Warwick Gates and not Bishops Tachbrook.
we are against these sites in their entirety, and I would like to question some of those responses, and in particular, as to why the council haven't seen fit to provide a presentation for Warwick Gates? We do not live at Chase Meadow, as suggested, and this is not a suburb of Bishops Tachbrook.
The case you so eloquently make would suggest we should have a presentation?
I personally, and please don't take offence, do not understand why a senior council planner, who doesn't come from this area, presides over answering objections to a LOCAL plan? I will be contacting my local councillor, if only to ask that.
It is good to know that these sites will be owned by those residing there. They may just look after them better than the areas they camp on illegally.
The Council website, which you refer to, for preferred option 15 for gypsies and travellers suggested that these travellers could have access to future locally sited schools, a little presumptuous don't you think? Any build in this area is not, to my knowledge, a done deal, is it? So how safe is the information on this site? Given the current "LOCAL PLAN" situation, I feel a little more sensitivity, when responding to general local concerns, would go a long way (thanks for pointing out my numbering mistake in my first correspondence).
I believe you were correct, I don't think you should have responded to item 6. The fact that you are not from this area gives you no forum to air your views over our local concerns but I will take your, unsupported, comments on board.
I will be contacting my council representative to place my objections but funnily enough that is what I thought this process was for?