Planning policy development plan

Niobe

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 Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers - Question 7

Representation ID: 9711

SUPPORT Derbyshire County Council (Mr Steven Buffery)

Summary:

Summary by Officer

The 15 stage assessment process takes account of overcrowding on existing sites (stage 12), newly forming households (stage 14) and future household formation from families moving out of bricks and mortar accommodation (stage 15).

More details about Rep ID: 9711

Representation ID: 9689

OBJECT K Gratton

Summary:

Objection to the locations identified in Eckington:
-poor access for vehicles
-potential flooding risk
-proximity to large Housing Estates & Allotment sites
-Lack of infrastructure facilities including Gas, Electricity or Water supplies on or close to the site
-no public transport facility
-local amenities such as schools at capacity (new housing estates under development increasing the strain on schools already)
-local GP's surgeries oversubscribed.

More details about Rep ID: 9689

Representation ID: 9440

OBJECT Mrs Christine Reynolds

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

I believe the local plan identifies the need to only increase the number of pitches within the existing areas that have sites currently. For example High Peak have no pitches currently so do not need to provide any in the future. The methodology behind this is flawed in its self, no consideration would appear to have been given to the cumulative effects of increased numbers of travellers within existing areas or to the need for equal distribution of sites through the entire locality. The Areas that already have established sites have surely met their obligations already and shoulder be put under undue pressure to increase provision further.

Has the option to re-establish the Shirebrook Gypsy Site been considered?

Does not the removal of the Wingerworth proposed site invalidate the whole consultation process?

More details about Rep ID: 9440

Representation ID: 9438

OBJECT Mrs Gail Ford

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

I believe the local plan identifies the need to only increase the number of pitches within the existing areas that have sites currently. For example High Peak have no pitches currently so do not need to provide any in the future. The methodology behind this is flawed in its self, no consideration would appear to have been given to the cumulative effects of increased numbers of travellers within existing areas or to the need for equal distribution of sites through the entire locality. The Areas that already have established sites have surely met their obligations already and shoulder be put under undue pressure to increase provision further.

Has the option to re-establish the Shirebrook Gypsy Site been considered?

Does not the removal of the Wingerworth proposed site invalidate the whole consultation process?

More details about Rep ID: 9438

Representation ID: 9436

OBJECT Mrs Phyllis Beresford

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

I believe the local plan identifies the need to only increase the number of pitches within the existing areas that have sites currently. For example High Peak have no pitches currently so do not need to provide any in the future. The methodology behind this is flawed in its self, no consideration would appear to have been given to the cumulative effects of increased numbers of travellers within existing areas or to the need for equal distribution of sites through the entire locality. The Areas that already have established sites have surely met their obligations already and shoulder be put under undue pressure to increase provision further.

Has the option to re-establish the Shirebrook Gypsy Site been considered?

Does not the removal of the Wingerworth proposed site invalidate the whole consultation process?

More details about Rep ID: 9436

Representation ID: 9434

OBJECT Mr Brian James

Summary:

Summary by Officer.

I believe the local plan identifies the need to only increase the number of pitches within the existing areas that have sites currently. For example High Peak have no pitches currently so do not need to provide any in the future. The methodology behind this is flawed in its self, no consideration would appear to have been given to the cumulative effects of increased numbers of travellers within existing areas or to the need for equal distribution of sites through the entire locality. The Areas that already have established sites have surely met their obligations already and shoulder be put under undue pressure to increase provision further.

Has the option to re-establish the Shirebrook Gypsy Site been considered?

Does not the removal of the Wingerworth proposed site invalidate the whole consultation process?

More details about Rep ID: 9434

Representation ID: 9335

OBJECT Mrs Glynis McLaughlin

Summary:

Proposed site would be overcrowded.
The highway is a single track country lane and unable to cope with the volume of increased lorries and cars. Entrance to the site has poor visibilty. The lane has no pavements for pedestrian safety.

More details about Rep ID: 9335

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

Powered by OpusConsult