Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Mr Ian Forrest search
New searchNo answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
I disagree as I bI strongly object to the proposed spatial strategy for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. The allocation of 529 pitches and 7 plots, including non-allocated sites in rural service centres, larger villages, and countryside, will overconcentrate development in sensitive areas, fundamentally altering the character of established communities and landscapes. The strategy fails to demonstrate that local infrastructure—roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities—can cope with the additional demand, particularly in rural locations where capacity is already limited. Permitting development across garden settlements and countryside raises serious concerns about harm to landscape, biodiversity, and residential amenity, with no clear evidence of mitigation. Furthermore, the approach to non-allocated sites and broad locations lacks robust, transparent criteria for sustainability and accessibility, creating uncertainty and risk of inappropriate site selection. This plan does not adequately safeguard environmental quality or community cohesion and should be revised to prioritise infrastructure capacity, environmental protection, and clear, evidence-based site selection.elive there is a large risk the countryside will become ruined,
I strongly disagree with the proposed policy as it lacks a balanced and sustainable approach. The policy prioritises meeting accommodation needs without adequately addressing the cumulative impact on local infrastructure, public services, and environmental quality. There is insufficient evidence that roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities can absorb the additional demand created by these allocations. Furthermore, the policy does not provide robust safeguards to prevent harm to rural landscapes, biodiversity, and residential amenity. The reliance on broad locations and non-allocated sites introduces uncertainty and risks inappropriate development in areas that are neither sustainable nor accessible. A sound policy should ensure infrastructure capacity, environmental protection, and transparent site selection criteria before committing to such significant growth.
I disagree with the proposed safeguarding policy because it lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and clear accountability measures. While safeguarding is essential, the policy does not adequately address ongoing compliance with health, safety, and environmental standards. There is insufficient detail on how breaches will be monitored and rectified, leaving permitted sites vulnerable to deterioration and potential harm to surrounding communities. Furthermore, the policy fails to ensure that safeguarding measures are proportionate to the scale of development and local context. A sound policy should include mandatory periodic reviews, transparent reporting, and clear penalties for non-compliance to protect residential amenity and maintain community confidence.
