Yes

Representation ID: 90064

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

Everyone has the right to a secure home, however where this accommodation is located needs careful consideration and should not negatively impact local communities. Development should involve the local community early in the process and consideration should be given to local infrastructure and amenities, and if they can cope with additional pressure.

No

Representation ID: 90264

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Edwards

Surely such services should be available only to those who contribute to their cost via council tax, income tax, national insurance etc. As an alternative, services should be available on a fully costed, commercial basis between provider and user, including direct cost of build, running etc and indirect costs, such as adequate and effective policing, personal security, loss and damage to property, sanitation etc.
[Text redacted]

No

Representation ID: 90939

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs sarah wood

why are these needs separated from the general public?

Other

Representation ID: 91015

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The Accommodation Assessment Study has identified a need for an additional 35 residential boat moorings over the plan period. Policy Direction 11 indicates that the local planning authorities will work with other organisations, including the Canal & River Trust, to deliver the additional capacity identified as being required. The Trust recommends further direct engagement on this matter as any such moorings on the Trust’s waterways will need to be acceptable to us and will need to be licensed by the Trust. We therefore do not recommend that locations on the Trust’s waterways are selected without prior consultation with the Trust.

Other

Representation ID: 91143

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

The proposal to include sites within large residential developments is not supported.

No

Representation ID: 91250

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

I dare not write my real thoughts on the idea of Gypsy and Traveller Community encampments integrated into housing developments of 500+ dwellings. Suffice to say Planners have had some harebrained ideas over the years but this one takes the proverbial biscuit.

Other

Representation ID: 91442

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Location of Gypsies, travellers and Travelling Show people should be achieved at a County level and not District level. Key larger sites in a county should be allocated unlike what is today many smaller sites all over the place that may or may not be legal. I live within 4 miles of two traveller sites that i question are legal and another less than 6 miles away. Why couldn't one have been suffice?

Yes

Representation ID: 91622

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

Agree with policy direction of negotiated stopping places with appropriate facilities and expect that this will give more clarity and speedier resolution where non-negotiated stopping places are used. Accommodation for travellers there should be an element of self build in the large settlements.

Yes

Representation ID: 91708

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

N/A

No

Representation ID: 91751

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms miranda maloney

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 91903

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Paula Holmes

It will make very little difference to your approach, (text redacted)

Other

Representation ID: 92455

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Alford

My personal experience of travellers arriving in my local area is wholly negative [redacted]. I am open to recognising their right to their lifestyle but I am unsure why the plan looks to accommodate them.

Yes

Representation ID: 92534

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Fairburn

N/A

No

Representation ID: 92585

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development on green belt land for any person or group of people

No

Representation ID: 92616

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heidi Ambrose-Brown

Yes to providing specific sites for the traveller community, but I know that trying to integrate these within or next to existing housing developments will cause serious issues between the two. The travelling community have their own code of conduct and way of living which can be at odds with other residents - speaking from experience when travellers have pitched up nearby Hatton, Warwick and Kenilworth.
We need site specific areas for travellers so that they can keep to their lifestyle and integrate with locals as and when - rather than forcing the two communities together.

Other

Representation ID: 92911

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

To suggest large scale settlements for these groups seems to be asking for trouble. But they should be encouraged to settle in appropriate sites so that they can access health care and education and contribute to the wider community

Yes

Representation ID: 93380

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haggarty

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 93462

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vivien Haggarty

N/A

No

Representation ID: 93616

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Steph Johnson

"Provide for Future Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation need. The Local Plan will requirethe provision of pitches and plots on large scale development sites (of over 500 homes) to meet the identified need as set out in the latest GTAA accommodation assessment (or any subsequent update)." Not only are you going to saddle certain communities with huge numbers of houses, but you will also force those communities to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers too? This is unconstitutional and will lead to social unrest.

Yes

Representation ID: 93930

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Please prioritise the temporary traveller sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 93931

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

Provide Leamington with a bigger Football stadium which has better access and can serve the community better, provide better sporting opportunities and community activities, don't have to be football.
The current Leamington FC would be an ideal size for Travellers etc

Yes

Representation ID: 94586

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

n/a

Other

Representation ID: 94813

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

The proposal for transit provision needs clarification on matters such as criteria for locations suitable to deliver the services identified

No

Representation ID: 95369

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Guy Vellacott

I do not believe that land should be handed over to anyone with out paying for it and its upkeep.

No

Representation ID: 95698

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

There is no credible evidence to support the Councils proposed approach to GTAA provision.

No

Representation ID: 95730

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

A blanket requirement for provision of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation within all sites over 500 homes is not considered acceptable. The suitability of sites of this scale to accommodate the identified need should be assessed on a site-by-site basis; having regard to the scale and distribution of need, and the constraints and opportunities presented by the proposed allocations. Sites may also come forward elsewhere in the District through windfalls, and therefore the need and timing of provision will need to be kept under review.

Other

Representation ID: 95917

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Why is there no upper limit of plot/pitches proscribed when the two options H6a and H6c were equally favoured?

No

Representation ID: 96042

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

These minority groups are capable of finding their own accommodation. The focus should be upon supporting the old and vulnerable who are not capable of finding suitable accommodation.

Other

Representation ID: 96315

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County representatives support this provided that the provision of pitches and plots on large scale development sites of over 500 homes includes the possibility of S106 contributions being made instead for offsite provision.

Other

Representation ID: 96568

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Why is no upper limit of plot/pitches proscribed when the two options H6a and H6c were equally favoured?