You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Option GT2
COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)
With regard to Gypsies and Travellers both permanent and stopping sites should be provided.
OBJECT Mx Miles Row
Needs to include Babergh and reevaluate why there is supposedly no need in Babergh as there is a serious lack of provision all across Suffolk. The policy that actually provides what is needed in agreement without just redesignating private pitches as public through compulsory purchase is what is needed.
OBJECT Mr Peter Powell
This option might mean traveller sites included as part of a development application and that may be problematic
It is probably safer to consider traveller sites in the proximity of development sites after that development has been established.
OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)
OBJECT Mr Graham Moxon
It is a sad reality that the close proximity of these sites to residential developments will devalue those homes and make them less desirable to potential residents..
OBJECT Mr Richard Howard
Definitely no need to have them near the area here
OBJECT Mr Terry Corner
Suggests travelers would be allocated space within other developments. Sites should be separate due to concern over noise and visual impact.
OBJECT Mr Barry Dixon
In my view, the nature of travellers is that they are mobile and do not wish to become part of a permanent community. Consequently, I believe it is inadvisable to try to incorporate travelling communities into permanent settlements. This is of particular concern for residents of the smallest settlements, viz. Hinterland Villages and Hamlets. The provision of local services in such settlements to support travellers is impractical.