No

Representation ID: 85987

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Rebecca England

Money should be invested elsewhere

No

Representation ID: 85998

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sian Corrie

There are an increasing number of 'illegal' Gypsie Traveler' sites appearing, these are constructed without planning consent and are frequently permitted following retrospective planning applications and appeals. This causes a lot of concern. A review of all existing sites should be taken into consideration when considering future needs.

Yes

Representation ID: 86006

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Harris

Increasing numbers of people are choosing to live in a transient manner (canals/roads) rather than living in a fixed location so housing policy needs to respond to this changing need

No

Representation ID: 86067

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 86138

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

(Some communities) appear to be able to circumnavigate existing planning laws by purchasing land and constructing sites at will and obtaining retrospective planning consent.

No

Representation ID: 86406

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

Identification of the need for this to happen in the Kenilworth proposals needs identifying to the local community as our roads and provision will not accommodate their needs
I appreciate they need somewhere to live but it should be away from new housing estates with good road access and a high level of support for residents

No

Representation ID: 86650

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Option 6c is the only reasonable and fair option. All people should be treated fairly, and on the face of it equally. This also requires all people to participate and be responsible for their part on society. No group of people should have beneficial treatment as a matter of course.

Yes

Representation ID: 86747

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

No further comment

Other

Representation ID: 86839

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Fossett

You have just given planning on a circus winter quarters outside Stratford so hardly safeguarding existing sites. Showmen and gypsies needs are completely different and culturally they have no connection. You should not be creating one site at Harbury for both communities. It would cause problems.

No

Representation ID: 86908

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Don't agree with any further new development

No

Representation ID: 87014

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

Given the experience residents of kenilworth have had with gypsie travellers, more attention needs to be given to the cultural support of local communities first.

Yes

Representation ID: 87386

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

No

Representation ID: 87569

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I do not agree

Yes

Representation ID: 87706

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathrin Foster

n/a

No

Representation ID: 87811

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Godson

The proposal fails to adequately address the integration of Gypsy, Traveller, and Travelling Showpeople accommodation into wider communities. While safeguarding existing sites is important, the approach of requiring large developments to provide small-scale sites on the edge of developments could segregate these communities and hinder integration. The lack of emphasis on accessible facilities, such as healthcare and education for these groups, undermines the intention of providing sustainable living.

Yes

Representation ID: 88029

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Taylor

Support but allocation of boat moorings should be increased substantially.

Yes

Representation ID: 88091

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Durk

There will be too many people saying that they don't want travellers anywhere near them. Sites MUST be preserved for these people.

No

Representation ID: 88400

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

Gypsies, traveller and show persons community do not need any further areas (Redacted text) . If such areas where to be made available to prevent illegal occupation fair and market value charges should be administered.

Yes

Representation ID: 88562

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

We have for too long failed to meet or obligations here.

No

Representation ID: 88663

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Large Strategic sites should be selected for Travellers / Gypsies etc around the UK and not scattered small sites. I live in an area that within 8 miles there are 3 traveller sites. Why could not strategic site be selected. (Redacted Text) Large scale traveller sites should be identified and existing smaller scattered sites closed (redacted text).

No

Representation ID: 88743

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Lane

Local experience is that Travellers buy land through concealed, third parties and occupy it without any planning permission or local facilities. The Local Authority is then left with the cost of evicting them or treating them as a special case for post occupation planning permission in a way that is distinctly unfair to law abiding citizens who follow the rules. The approach for this community needs to balance the provision of appropriate sites with planning permission and facilities for healthy living and minimal disruption of neighbours with rapid and not prolonged enforcement of the planning laws.

Other

Representation ID: 88756

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

Provision needs to be made for waste and recycling as site can frequently become an sore due to accumulated rubbish which spreads outside the boundary of the site.

Other

Representation ID: 88968

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Nigel Rock

5.4 G&Travellers and Boat Dwelling
The comment regarding the number of boat dwellers in Napton is noted, derived from supporting reports. In the tight time scale of the plan detail discussion of this aspect it has not been possible to further understand the issues. However, not only are the numbers influenced by this single site but there are other sites where ostensible ‘mobile’ dwellers appear on the electoral roll. In a number of cases this suggests that immunity from enforcements may be the case and that informal accommodation of numbers of such ‘travellers’ of various types may need further explanation.

Generally speaking, I believe the experience elsewhere that is it is better to avoid large traveller sites.

No

Representation ID: 89020

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Adequate land must be set aside in new settlements or growth areas to accommodate these developments. They must not be left to chance or afterthought

Yes

Representation ID: 89063

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Julie Hudson

I think this is an excellent part of the plan.

Other

Representation ID: 89129

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara Bird

It would make sense that these sites provided/allowed would be within areas where integration is possible, the old football club for example is near facilities and schools with minimal travel.
Boat dwellers site availability in conjunction with relevant organisations makes sense.

Yes

Representation ID: 89238

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

It is better to have a planned, and understood, provision for travellers than have them suddenly appear and occupy land assigned for other purposes with no infrastructure to support them. We've all seen the results of that happening in the past - trespass, terrible mess being left behind and communities being put into conflict with one another.

Yes

Representation ID: 89394

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Amanda Knight

No additional comments

Yes

Representation ID: 89553

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

I strongly support retaining spaces for the traveller community and not encroaching on their sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 89919

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Pillerton Priors Parish Council

The policy relating to large scale development sites to include a requirement for developers to provide pitches and plots on those sites. This is a sensible way of overcoming local resistance in that, if the pitches/plots are developed at the same time as the large scale development then there would be no established residents to object. There is also likely to be much better infrastructure than is the case in small rural plots.