Do you support or object to the preferred criteria for selecting the location of gypsy and traveller sites?

Object

Representation ID: 2455

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

When Gypsy and Travellers visit Thickthorn the town comes to a standstill with total chaos - (Photos can be provided if required). A police report on road closures, guns and helicopters should be reviewed.

Object

Representation ID: 2472

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr G.C. Allman

Personally I object to my taxes funding the development of sites for a group of people who choose not to pay taxes and generally only have a negative impact on whatever community they pitch up on.

Object

Representation ID: 2542

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Friends, Families & Travellers and Traveller Law Reform Project

Should indicate how pitches will be delivered - Circular 1/2006 states that allocations should be made through allocations DPDs.
No objections to criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 however we believe that the others are too tightly drawn.
C4 enables objections where there are existing residential propereties. Para 63 of 1/2006 states lpas should consider first locations in or near existing settlements. C4 does not define 'other disturbances' if retained it should be defined.
C6 may enable local landscape and nature conservation designations being used to refuse permission for sites contrary to para53 of Circ.1/2006. This criterion thus requires revision or preferably deletion.

Object

Representation ID: 2572

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

KENILWORTH does have many problems when permission is given to travellers to hold horse fairs and other events in the town. Permanent involvement would be detrimental to the residents and tourists.

Comment

Representation ID: 2650

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

All required services GP, schools etc should be on the site since these perople fo not wish to integrate in the accepted manner.

Support

Representation ID: 2698

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Devitt

The selection of gypsys venues should be for small sites limited to 10-12 vehicles to ensure the impact is minimal. The provision of supervision of such sites at our expense should require a reciprocal agreement from the users - they should pay rent, be responsible for all service costs and elect a small committee to be responsible for waste and recycling.

Object

Representation ID: 2765

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

New sites hould not be built on greenfield areas. Utilities should be provided but no new sites should be allowed near low lying flood risk areas or areas of natural beauty. If services and infrastructure are provided, those who benefit should pay rates and utility charges.

Object

Representation ID: 2852

Received: 11/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Butcher

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2915

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: ALISON ELFWOOD

DON'T AGREE WITH PANDERING TO THE WHIMS OF THESE PEOPLE . RULES ARE FOR EVERYONE OR NO ONE. YOU DECIDE

Object

Representation ID: 3239

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: mrs stella moore

gypsies have caused such problems in the local area that I do not think their needs merit all this and that they should pay taxes like the rest of us

Object

Representation ID: 3292

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

Gypsies and Travellers chose this way of life,
I do not see why others have to pay for this.

Support

Representation ID: 3344

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3413

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs M Kane

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3489

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3583

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Owen

object

Object

Representation ID: 3720

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

By qualifying the access to GP surgery, school etc as 'Convenient' I am concerned that this policy directly leads to sites that abut the larger rural communities or the suburbs. The 4th criteria does not seem particularly strong either - why not refer to the amenity and privacy of existing dwellings to help reinforce it?

Support

Representation ID: 3759

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3887

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Patricia Diane Freeman

Gypsies are a law to themselves. Why are they not subject to the law we all adopt.

Support

Representation ID: 3916

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

It is usually the minority that give groups a bad name and gypsies suffer from this. If there are fair rules and they obey them there would be no problem.
I do support this but wouldn't it be really nice if you used this criteria for those of us who are not gypsies or travellers. eg, you want to build homes on a flood site to the South of Harbury Lane, but presumably this would not be suitable for a gypsy or traveller site!

Support

Representation ID: 4088

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Keith Turfrey

The objective is sound. If we are to avoid the problems that regularly occur in Kenilworth ( not always true Gypsies) then a controlled site is essential. Not Abbey Fields again though. NIMBY attitudes will surface but the objective is correct.

Support

Representation ID: 4100

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 4451

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

support

Support

Representation ID: 4558

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

support

Object

Representation ID: 4627

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

These communities do not contribute to local community or pay their way. They should not be accommodated.

Object

Representation ID: 4794

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: richard keylock

Why are these individuals singled out from any other minority group? They should be made to apply for their requirements like all other applicants and go through the same processes. They as a group should not be afforded any special treatment or favouritism.

Object

Representation ID: 4843

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Clarke

This is a group that respects no other section of the community ,makes no contribution to society and is responsible for bringing crime and rubbish to any community they are near.I can substantiate this from all the issues at the so called Kenilworth Horse fairs

Object

Representation ID: 4892

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

The number of sites indicated is too many

Support

Representation ID: 5067

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5076

Received: 21/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Keylock

Why are these individuals singled out from any other minority group? They should be made to apply for their requirements like all other applicants and go through the same processes. They as a group should not be afforded any special treatment or favouritism. Why not favour hardworking familes with both mums and dads who always appear to be the "odd ones out" and rarely afforded any special treatment!

Object

Representation ID: 5166

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

Gypsies and travelers should not be allowed to stay anywhere unless they leave a cash bond/retainer with the owner of the area that they wish to stay in to cover damage/cleaning etc. It should be the goal of local Government to actively encourage (all) people to pay their own way and not take other peoples resources for free.