Question 34. How should we meet the need for additional Gypsy, Traveller and caravan sites?

There is a very site-specific requirement to address the needs of the Fen Road caravan and traveller community, by ensuring there is adequate vehicular access to the area by some other means than the heavily used (by rail transport) Fen Road level crossing. Though I cannot give chapter and verse on this, I bleieve the 2003 local plan sought to address thhis issue, and in tshe light of the propopsed NE Cambridge Fringe development of the Anglian Water site, this may be the only realistic chance of addressing this issue before options are closed off. It would be preferable if the site could be reached directpy by a vehicular route leading off from the A14 Milton roundabout

Ask them what they need? Also work out how rubbish disposal can be sorted for those pitching at sites. Ways to temporarily integrate them into rubbish collection systems, e.g. temporary larger bins at sites when occupied?

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs?

Gypsy and travellers are largely dependant on the urban economy and caravan sites should be located accordingly.

Our community feels strongly that any caravan site would be hugely detrimental to our village. Communities that are currently supporting these sites should receive considerable additional support.

Revive the green lanes network, provide lots more sites for caravans, stop criminalising people with nomadic ways of life, provide more common land

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

Nothing to add.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Consultation Paper indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a local plan that is being discussed – does that local plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

Sensitively, generously and carefully - ensuring high quality provision and expecting high standards of courteous and respectful behaviour on all sides.

The question pre-supposes that additional provision is required. The Issues and Options document indicates that further need was not identified for those meeting the ‘planning’ definition. Given that it is a Local Plan that is being discussed – does that Local Plan need to cater for what might be termed ‘non-planning definition’ needs? If there is a need for further provision, then such provision should be dispersed across the whole plan area to avoid concentrations in particular areas.

If they don't fall within the planning definition, we shouldn't be supporting them any more than we could a general member of our population. If they aren't travellers in a nomadic sense, and are in fact just people who want to live in caravans rather than houses, why should we be providing them with sites? It is terribly difficult for hard working people on low incomes to get a council house and it seems that caravan dwellers are getting preferential treatment. This is not a racial comment - merely a matter of equity.

Access to residential settlement should be safe and unrestricted. For example, the current rail crossing which provides access for the large traveller community in North Cambridge is inadequate and isolates the people. Providing alternative or additional access to these areas is important to the safety and wellbeing of such communities.

The Trumpington Residents’ Association agrees that it is important to support travellers and welcome them into the community. We note that a need has been identified to provide sites for those who wish to live in a caravan and do not wish to travel, and for pitches to accommodate Travelling Showpeople. However, no commitment is then made to act on this, other than to review evidence. We think that it is important that this need is met in a constructive way.

not exactly an answer to the question - but can the resolution to more Gypsy, TRaveller and caravan sites also be wrapped up with some purchase of existing sites to allow for access to Cam North station from that side of the tracks. This may be especially important as Northcote is built.

Meet the need urgently. The current situation is racist and also makes life challenging for sustainable-living non-Gypsies, e.g. van-dwellers and New Age types.

The Local Plan should seek to ensure adequate provision is made for all Gypsy, Traveller, Travelling Showpeople, other Caravan Dwellers and Boat Dwellers needs as identified through Gypsies and Travellers Need Assessment on which joint working is currently underway. A diverse range of locations should be provided to ensure they provide choice and respond to the preferences of future residents.

Our village was invaded by 'nomad' style Gypsies a couple years ago and it made life very unpleasant for everyone. Can we provide spaces for them outside of the city where they dont cause a nuisance and compel them to use those spaces instead of the disruption they currently cause to the police and residents.

Be sure to consult Gypsies and Travellers and caravan dwellers directly about their needs for new sites.

I think it's really important that you engage properly with the Gypsy and Traveller communities to find out their ideas and concerns. Greater Cambridge must protect the needs of these communities and help them access nearby services and facilities.

Proposed government legislation is suggesting that travellers will be committing trespass if they do not park up in official sites. On that basis, we must, in consultation with this community, provide sites where the traveller community will use them. We will be letting them down horribly otherwise. This is controversial, this is not easy, but it must be done.

I’m sure Michael Hargreaves Planning in Swaffham Bulbeck would have a few suggestions. Derelict farm sites might be a starter.