Question 9

Object

Representation ID: 10

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

Gypsy and travellers should be located in an area outside congested and busy neighbourhood for the safety of the neighbourhood and also the road congestions . I have no idea about any site but I believe it has to be outside town in a specially designed location which won't cause any issue to the neighbourhood according to the life style that gypsy and travellers may have .

Support

Representation ID: 24

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: N/a

i am supportive of the locations. i would add that i am unsure how the 1 plot GT18 will work in reality as it appears to be situated to the rear of trade/businesses and to the side of a proposed development site. would this not box the site in and make it less likely to be utilised by the travelling community?

Object

Representation ID: 41

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

Nonsense

Support

Representation ID: 56

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

lots of open space. smaller sites not so much upheaval on local transport/communities.
This is well in south staffs areas, you want the revenue build well within your boundaries, no need to incrouch elsewehere.
Good existing road networks

Object

Representation ID: 78

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

I fully disagree with the proposed plans to build more houses in Wombourne

Support

Representation ID: 101

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

I have no issues with site GT18

Object

Representation ID: 114

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

GT18 Wombourne [redaction]. Showmen for work purposes should be put in Himley hotel. [redaction]. No I don't agree.

Object

Representation ID: 144

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longman

GT18 - lack of infrastructure, congestion adjacent roads. Green belt land. Currently the health services in the area are at capacity and infrastructure is poor. School are also currently at capacity which would affect travellers hugely.

Object

Representation ID: 145

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longman

GT18 - I do not know of an alternative, but I reusing a brownfield site in an area with better infrastructure, facilities less congestion services and improved road links would be appropriate. Health services and school provision is not available in Wombourne.

Object

Representation ID: 159

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Jauncey

REF GT35, strongly object due to the impact on our amenity to living in close proximity to the site. Parking of commercial vehicles already belonging to the travellers in the lane is diabolical visually making it unable to navigate around long lanes of parked vans. The fires they have at night resulting from collections from their businesses causing serious smells and plumes of smoke. The constant dog barking day and night drives us insane. Sanitation issues we currently have in the village is a major issue, along with flooding, and not withstanding they are making the lane undesirable.

Object

Representation ID: 161

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Arran Shuker

Site ref GT18

[redaction].

Object

Representation ID: 176

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

[redaction]. Do not encourage them to come here.

Object

Representation ID: 219

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: A G Morris

Can Essington support the requirements of this community when we have little or no facilities ourselves?

Support

Representation ID: 232

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Heine Planning

Policy is overdue
Support for all proposed sites-many of which have a long planning history
The need must be expressed as a minimum need
All allocations should be inset from the Green Belt
Potential for more pitches at GT01

Support

Representation ID: 249

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

Agree

Support

Representation ID: 262

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

I

Object

Representation ID: 268

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr L Wildman

GT17
opposition to the landywood stables allocation on the grounds that there are already sizable and numerous traveller sites within the locality.

Object

Representation ID: 275

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

Access to the proposed site would be dangerous. Visibility is poor and there is regular flooding in that area which may adversely impact the proposed area, or worsen it.

Support

Representation ID: 297

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

System problem, no opertunity to answer Q9 B
Q9 A
Yes
No comment

Q9 B
No
No comment

Support

Representation ID: 318

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

GT01 has been in place since 2009 and I feel has been successful.
Penkridge also has a travelling community on the canal infrastructure which hasn't been mentioned.
Canal boat residents use facilities such as the Library when passing through. More facilities need to be provided to cater for their needs.

Object

Representation ID: 365

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

No response

Object

Representation ID: 375

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

IWA does not support allocation GT08 Brinsford Bridge. The existing site has had a damaging impact on the environment and setting of the adjacent Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and its Conservation Area. Extension of the site should not be permitted, unless it includes the provision of major landscape screening from the canal and a long term requirement to maintain its effectiveness.

Support

Representation ID: 398

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr T Cowern

Agent: Mr Hugh Lufton

Yes, part of land off Queens Road, Calf Heath.

Support

Representation ID: 412

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

No further comments to offer.

Object

Representation ID: 500

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parsons

We do not support any further gypsy or traveler plots especially streets lane as these people have and are already causing problems on this bungalow and land by allowing several dogs to bark 24/7 multiple vehicles parked obstructing the road rubbish all over the land and bonfires been lit burning all sorts causing thick black smoke to drift down the street. We object on the above grounds and the grounds of [redacted] PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW ANY FURTHER CAMPS

Object

Representation ID: 504

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parsons

I do not support any extra gypsy or traveller sites or pitches [redacted].

Object

Representation ID: 520

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

Too many sites, needs to be reduced due to the impact across various sites and local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 527

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Liz Sithole

This is right by my doorstep and had no idea until a couple of weeks ago. That Lane is already quite busy with traffic. Will roads be widened and traffic calming? Surrounding area has a large population of elderly and young children and more traffic and people would make it very busy. Also with more people issues of safety and anti-social behaviour may arise which we already see around the Quinton area and some of the fields. How are you going to keep us, the elderly and our children safe?

Support

Representation ID: 538

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

..

Object

Representation ID: 546

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David Harrison

There should be no consideration at all of using green belt land for traveller sites. The impact of inevitable antisocial behaviour must also be considered.