Object

Representation ID: 8085

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: matt horne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Unable to find provision for the counties traveller and homeless population. Just been (rather lately) informed of this consultation, giving very little time to analyse or discuss amongst us ,of the council's proposals (if any).
Councillors have been made aware of our existence, although we don't seen to appear in any statistics I can find.
I'd like to refer you to national planning policy framework, chapter 5 paragraph 63 and associated appendix 28
Our site is a dynamic place with various resident, of diverse ages and needs. The previous survey by indicated seven pitches needed; however since then, several more individuals and families have moved onto site.
Age ranges from 2 to 72, with a variety of health , social and educational needs. The site status as "illegal" increases insecurity, with the threat of losing our homes, and possible imprisonment.

Object

Representation ID: 8242

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is no evidence to justify the need for a Gypsy or Traveller's site at or near SGB. (Policy SS4). Secondly there is no evidence that this site is suitable or on the north-south travel line for travellers?

Support

Representation ID: 8355

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Multi Agency Traveller Unit

Thee is a need to separate the need and delivery of the New Traveller pitches from the Gypsy and Traveller pitches as their needs and aspirations are very different, this needs to be identified now so it can feed into the DPD document.

Strongly support Gypsy, Traveller and showman provision being included in the strategic site SS4 and this should also be locked in as early as possible into the development plan for that site.

Object

Representation ID: 8357

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Roadside groups in Rutland are long term homeless and we need to improve the situation.
Whilst Policy H10 goes some way it does not identify that some of this current and future need is for New Travellers who require an entirely different approach to accommodation and site delivery than more traditional ethnic Gypsies and Irish Travellers.
Likely future provision for New Travellers (by authority or RSL), needs to be outlined in the plan given current very poor living conditions.
Proposal for Gypsy, Traveller and Showman pitches as part of wider redevelopment of St Georges Barracks Policy SS4 is welcomed.

Object

Representation ID: 8704

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note that there remains a reference to future provision of land for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople at emerging Policy H10, to be delivered at the Future Opportunity Areas of St George’s Barracks and Woolfox. This approach is unsound and contrary to NPPF paragraph 35 as this approach is unjustified and not positively planned.