Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

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) - Q29

Representation ID: 13177

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Our preference would be that the Council look to adopt only option GT1.

More details about Rep ID: 13177

Representation ID: 12949

COMMENT Dr Jonathan Tuppen

Summary:

Although policy relates to both BDC and Mid Suffolk the report suggests that need is M.S. The Cromer incident occurred when travellers gathered in large numbers therefore, limiting sites to short stay and small number of vehicles (say 3 days/3 plots) with sites well spread apart (say 20 miles) is safer for communities.

More details about Rep ID: 12949

Representation ID: 12493

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Ms Libby Hindle)

Summary:

Our preference would be that the Council look to adopt only option GT1.

More details about Rep ID: 12493

Representation ID: 12398

COMMENT Old Newton Parish Council (Mrs Karen Price)

Summary:

There is currently provision for travellers within close proximity and therefore not deemed a requirement for our parish.

More details about Rep ID: 12398

Representation ID: 12336

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Mr. James Bailey)

Summary:

Our preference would be that the Council look to adopt only Option GT1.

More details about Rep ID: 12336

Representation ID: 12039

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern (Mr Gary Duncan) represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

We support Option GT1 which seeks to allocate site(s) to meet identified
requirements.
We object to Option GT2, which seeks to allocate sites for gypsies and travellers as
part of larger residential allocations in Mid Suffolk. We consider that such an
approach would fail to meet the specific needs of the gypsies and travellers
themselves, with no evidence put forward that such provision would be appropriate or suitable.

More details about Rep ID: 12039

Representation ID: 11785

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Heather & Michael Earey

Summary:

Gypsies and travellers
*Although policy relates to both BDC and Mid Suffolk the report suggests that need is M.S. The Cromer incident occurred when travellers gathered in large numbers therefore, limiting sites to short stay and small number of vehicles (say 3 days/3 plots) with sites well spread apart (say 20 miles) is safer for communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11785

Representation ID: 11640

COMMENT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by JB Planning Associates (Mr Nicholas Ward)

Summary:

Support Option GT1. Object GT2. Such an approach would fail to meet the specific needs of the gypsies and travellers themselves, with no evidence put forward that such provision would be appropriate or suitable for them. It would seem highly unlikely that gypsies and travellers would wish to be located within a new housing development, as opposed to more private and secluded sites elsewhere. Such an approach that advocated under option GT2 would seem likely to cause potential conflict between the settled and gypsy and traveller communities.

More details about Rep ID: 11640

Representation ID: 11430

OBJECT Stour & Orwell Society (Ms Emma Proctor King)

Summary:

SOS does not support the provision of further sites in Babergh.

More details about Rep ID: 11430

Representation ID: 11119

COMMENT Rattlesden Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Regarding accommodation for gypsies and travellers, the Council notes that the consultation document refers to an over-supply at present, which must inform general discussion on what is often a controversial set of issues. That said, it is not believed that this question has any impact on or relevance to Rattlesden.

More details about Rep ID: 11119

Representation ID: 11025

OBJECT Stowmarket Town Council (Ms Michelle Marshall)

Summary:

Stowmarket Town Council does not support the provision of negotiated stopping places as it supports the provision of fixed and transient sites, if they are deemed necessary.

More details about Rep ID: 11025

Representation ID: 10989

COMMENT Babergh Alliance of Parish & Town Councils (Helen Davies)

Summary:

We support Options GT1 and TS1 but consider the latter sites might be multi purpose, providing some local community benefit when not in use. Could such sites be managed by local parishes and designated for show-people's priority use but bookable so that parishes could use them to organise events when not required? Could negotiated stopping places also be designed for heavy goods vehicle stopover places when not in use by travellers?

More details about Rep ID: 10989

Representation ID: 10796

COMMENT Mendlesham Parish Council (Mrs Sharon Jones )

Summary:

Carry on with the identification work for possible stopping sites. Ensure that their use is legally restricted.

More details about Rep ID: 10796

Representation ID: 10650

COMMENT Mrs LP Wheatley

Summary:

Gypsies need sites to stop for a few days and it appears that these facilities are already available. however, gypsies and travellers who do not actually travel should not be given preferential treatment over the rest of the population as regards permanent sites as their needs are no greater than the rest of the population.

More details about Rep ID: 10650

Representation ID: 10303

COMMENT Taylor Wimpey represented by Boyer Planning (Kate Kerrigan)

Summary:

Our preference would be that the Council look to adopt only option GT1.

More details about Rep ID: 10303

Representation ID: 9720

COMMENT Miss R P Baillon

Summary:

If 'stopping places' refers to families/groups with caravans etc, then the existing caravan sites should be adequate. Presumably, families/groups plan their journeys with these sites in mind.

More details about Rep ID: 9720

Representation ID: 9548

COMMENT Cllr John Hinton

Summary:

With a "need" for pitches of ZERO in Babergh, a small "stopping" place is all that is required, managed, chargeable, and with strong enforcement on unauthorised sites / stopping places.

More details about Rep ID: 9548

Representation ID: 8648

COMMENT Redlingfield parish meeting (Ms Janet Norman-Philips)

Summary:

With regard to Gypsies and Travellers both permanent and stopping sites should be provided.

More details about Rep ID: 8648

Representation ID: 8391

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

Support Options GT1 and TS1 but consider the latter might be multi purpose, providing community benefit when not in use. Could community manage their use with priority to showpeople but bookable so that if not booked could be used for community events. Consider the use of negotiated stopping place for alternative use as HGV stopover / rest places.
Although policy relates to both BDC and Mid Suffolk the report suggests that need is M.S. The Cromer incident occurred when travellers gathered in large numbers therefore, limiting sites to short stay and small number of vehicles (say 3 days/3 plots) with sites well spread apart (say 20 miles) is safer for communities.

More details about Rep ID: 8391

Representation ID: 8137

COMMENT Botesdale & Rickinghall CAP Group (Mr. William Sargeant)

Summary:

Continue the work underway, and apply the proposed policy to minimise impacts on amenity and avoid dominance of nearest settled community, avoiding flood zones and ensure that sites are well related to the road network and the geographical pattern of unauthorised encampments.

More details about Rep ID: 8137

Representation ID: 7651

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

It always appears that problems occur when travelers gather in large numbers (Cromer comes to mind) Therefore, limit sites to short stay and small number of vehicles (say 3 days/3 plots) with sites well spread apart (say 20 miles)

More details about Rep ID: 7651

Representation ID: 7510

COMMENT Mx Miles Row

Summary:

That there should be negotiated stopping places as there are not the pitches and there has not been any progress in several years. This means travellers having little choice but to break the law which then increases anti traveller feeling.

More details about Rep ID: 7510

Representation ID: 6717

COMMENT Yaxley Parish Council (Mr Philip Freeman)

Summary:

There is already fairly good, although underused, provision for the travelling community. There are problems with illegal traveller sites, a solution to this problem should be found.

More details about Rep ID: 6717

Representation ID: 6510

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

Q29 - Unauthorised encampments should be considered as they arise, and tolerated for a limited period or moved on case by case basis. Not support "negotiated stopping places"

More details about Rep ID: 6510

Representation ID: 6427

COMMENT Barham Parish Council (Mrs Joanne Culley)

Summary:

To make suitable sites avialable

More details about Rep ID: 6427

Representation ID: 6354

COMMENT Freston Parish Council (Ms Elizabeth Aldous)

Summary:

Create a policy which encourages dialogue and forward planning to meet needs of the travelling community and residents.

More details about Rep ID: 6354

Representation ID: 5941

COMMENT Little Waldingfield Parish Council (Mr Andy Sheppard)

Summary:

Nothing immediately springs to mind.

More details about Rep ID: 5941

Representation ID: 5886

COMMENT Little Cornard Parish Council (Mr Dave Crimmin)

Summary:

First and foremost consideration needs to be given to ensuring illegal stopping is prevented and where illegal entry is forced and/or damage/rubbish caused all enforcement measures are taken and penalties sought through the legal system. Once it can be demonstrated that this has been achieved consideration can then be given to provision of negotiated stopping places. In general, stopping places should only be provided with regard to seasonal employment opportunities in the local area. Suffolk should become a 'no go' area until the travelling community undertake to behave responsibly.

More details about Rep ID: 5886

Representation ID: 5757

COMMENT Mr Adrian James

Summary:

Allocate site(s) to meet identified requirements, away from residential areas, charge appropriate fees.

More details about Rep ID: 5757

Representation ID: 5719

COMMENT Mr Carroll Reeve

Summary:

The Councils should engage with the Gypsy and Traveller communities to seek their views as to any generic site characteristics, and having digested that then seek to start a dialogue with the towns/parishes concerned.

More details about Rep ID: 5719

Representation ID: 5572

COMMENT Pinewood Parish Council (Mrs Sandra Peartree)

Summary:

To consider suitable sites.

More details about Rep ID: 5572

Representation ID: 5006

COMMENT Brantham Parish Council (Mrs Sarah Keys)

Summary:

GT1 only.

More details about Rep ID: 5006

Representation ID: 4696

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Create a policy which encourages dialogue and forward planning to meet needs of the travelling community and residents.

More details about Rep ID: 4696

Representation ID: 4642

COMMENT Lavenham Parish Council (Carroll Reeve)

Summary:

The Councils should engage with the Gypsy and Traveller communities to seek their views as to any generic site characteristics, and having digested that then seek to start a dialogue with the towns/parishes concerned.

More details about Rep ID: 4642

Representation ID: 4244

COMMENT Holton St Mary Parish Council (Ms Dorothy Steeds )

Summary:

We have insufficient knowledge of this subject.

More details about Rep ID: 4244

Representation ID: 4024

COMMENT West Suffolk (Mrs Amy Wright)

Summary:

The options and preferences are silent on the need to address the 3 Suffolk transit sites for Gypsy/ Travellers (referenced on p44). West Suffolk appreciates a continued collaborative Suffolk-wide approach to site identification.

More details about Rep ID: 4024

Representation ID: 3676

SUPPORT Mr Neil Lister

Summary:

As laid out in the consultation document, but sited well away from existing recreation sites. Limit sites to short stay and small number of vehicles (3 days/3 plots) with sites well spread apart (say 20 miles).

More details about Rep ID: 3676

Representation ID: 3437

COMMENT Fressingfield Parish Council (Mr Alexander Day)

Summary:

The Parish Council took no view on this question as it seemed that MSDC had sufficient sites available for the projected need.

More details about Rep ID: 3437

Representation ID: 3249

COMMENT Mrs Tania Farrow

Summary:

No Comment

More details about Rep ID: 3249

Representation ID: 2869

COMMENT Diss & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ms Deborah Sarson)

Summary:

No response.

More details about Rep ID: 2869

Representation ID: 2621

COMMENT Cockfield Parish Council (Mr Doug Reed)

Summary:

Cockfield Parish Council believes they should be away from established settlements - owned and managed by Babergh District Council. Also, they be strictly supervised with rents levied and collected.

More details about Rep ID: 2621

Representation ID: 2404

COMMENT Chelmondiston PC (Mrs Rosie Kirkup)

Summary:

Negotiated stopping places should be provided, especially if SCC does sell off the permanent Ipswich site, also to reduce incidents of fly pitching.

More details about Rep ID: 2404

Representation ID: 2228

SUPPORT Battisford Parish Council (Mr Chris Knock)

Summary:

GT1 and TS1

More details about Rep ID: 2228

Representation ID: 1928

COMMENT Palgrave Parish Council (Sarah Foote)

Summary:

Don't know.

More details about Rep ID: 1928

Representation ID: 1826

COMMENT Debenham Parish Council (Mr Richard Blackwell)

Summary:

This needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

More details about Rep ID: 1826

Representation ID: 1759

COMMENT Mr Richard Blackwell

Summary:

On a case by case basis

More details about Rep ID: 1759

Representation ID: 1565

COMMENT Mr Alf Hannan

Summary:

Allocate sites away from residential areas

More details about Rep ID: 1565

Representation ID: 1251

COMMENT Raydon Parish Council (Mrs Jane Cryer)

Summary:

If provided these should be away from residential areas given the historic impact such sites have had on the local environment.

More details about Rep ID: 1251

Representation ID: 1146

COMMENT Great Ashfield PC (arthur peake)

Summary:

maintain current approach

More details about Rep ID: 1146

Representation ID: 203

COMMENT Mr D C Warren

Summary:

Provide sites in the most used areas

More details about Rep ID: 203

Representation ID: 118

COMMENT Mrs Sara Knight

Summary:

The identification of acceptable sites helps to deter the use of unacceptable ones and allows the councils to allocate sites that will be accessible by support services such as education and health workers.

More details about Rep ID: 118

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult