I have received a lot of emails and phone calls about the proposed permanent traveller sites in Sutton as part of Sutton Council’s Local Plan.
The proposals for two travellers’ sites on Kimpton Park Way and Hannibal Way in Wallington are part of Sutton Council’s draft Local Plan in which they look at the borough as a whole to decide on how it may look. This plan identifies key sites and gives potential developers a steer when seeking planning permission. Any plans for a travellers’ site would still need full planning permission.
However, as the Local Plan admits, the council is going further than is required in law. The government changed the law on defining travellers to those with a ‘nomadic habit of life’ were required access to a site, thus reducing the need for councils to find sites.
Sutton Council have gone further though saying in their draft Local Plan: “It is the council’s view that, despite the Government’s new definition, the council should continue to provide for the need identified for the borough’s permanent Gypsies and Travellers on the grounds that, the council site is so overcrowded, new site(s) are needed regardless.” (p.72, Sutton Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options document).
The council is consulting on this draft plan and has two questions relevant to this site:
- Consultation Question 12a – Do you agree with the council’s standpoint on the need for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? If not, please give details.
- Consultation Question 12b – Do you agree with the draft policy on Gypsy and Traveller sites ? If not, please give details.
You can see the standpoint and policy in the draft Local Plan here (the Sutton Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options document is a big download). The Sutton Local Plan Response Form can be found on the same page and should be emailed to planningpolicy@sutton.gov.uk.
At a time when we cannot find enough brownfield land to build a much-needed school and enough housing, I cannot see that we can justify relaxing the definition of travellers to supply extra provision for them at this time.
I have also sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, to clarify the ‘legal requirement’ element of Sutton Council’s proposals.
How come they can fund this but not a youth club… Doesn’t make any sense to anyone!
If travellers want a permanent address shouldn’t they be required to join the housing/council list like everyone else in the Borough has to. Our Borough’s residents would also love to stay near to thier families!
This is obviously land that is not “owned” by the council but owned by the tax payers that live within the LBS. Therefore, how are the council in a position to permit this without the local tax payers’ permission? Silly but relevant question, WHY were the LBS tax payers never consulted? I find it incredulous that they have the audacity to agree to such a scheme without consultation of residents – but then again, they’d know that wasn’t going to happen! This will reduce the price of our houses (that we’ve worked long and hard for!!!) and deter shoppers – are the council going to reduce our council tax?!!! A meeting needs to be called where all residents are invited to discuss this serious issue. Will these people pay council tax, will they be claiming benefits etc etc? If they’re not going to be paying council tax then maybe ALL residents within this borough could be exempt – then whose going to pay these do-good ers salary?!!!
Very sad news NO way. may the dead rest in peace.
12a, They should not be given the site, join the housing list like everyone else. Council tax has just been increases, for what, to fund this site.
12b,
Sutton 2031′ mentions major new regeneration areas, is this new site one of them.
Everybody need to vote at the next local council elections, we need to change those that are running Sutton Council
I do not want to tarnish people with the same brush but in all my years of being around Gypsies and Travellers (believe me I have) they bring nothing but trouble and destruction where ever they go. The Kimpton Park Industrial estate will become a target for their children to cause damage, Tesco will be robber day in day out, not to mention Tesco petrol station will have a lot more un-paying customers.
12a & 12b In every country we have rules and these rules must be followed. Rules should not be here to manipulate the system or to justify spending tax payer’s money unwisely. Apply for a council house if you want a permanent address just like everyone else. When trouble is caused the police can find you easier this way instead of hiding amongst yourselves.
12a Travellers either have a nomadic lifestyle, which in my eyes means they travel from site to site. These sites are basically semi permanent dwellings that are a “work around” to the existing planning laws. I believe that if people want to settle in the area they should either go through the local housing or in the case of the travellers, many of whom are highly skilled ground workers, builders, carpenters and motor traders etc with high disposable income should go through the private renting or purchasing route as every other resident in the borough has to.
12b no I do not believe in the policy and I feel that Sutton Council quite clearly is not addressing the complete lack of parking provisions on the Kimpton Industrial estate that Kippa BID has been highlighting for years. Surely to God any extra space should be dedicated to making parking available to the existing businesses and customers visiting this estate rather than a “feel good” scheme which will bring even more congestion, misery and overpopulation to an area that can ill afford it?
Why on earth would you want the local crime rate increased I have never experienced any good from nomadic people the life style they live does not in my opinion comply with lawful society hence my objection to this site
I think it’s a disgrace that the council is proposing to put a Gypsy site next to a place where people go to pay their respects to loved ones. Everyone knows that these type of sites only bring crime and mess to all the local areas and the Kimpton Estate will be like a magnet for all of them!! Also will the council pay for all the extra security that the local companies and residents will have to obtain to keep these people out?
More crime, more rubbish and more anti-social behaviour – why is this even an option?
Send them to Calais they will be right at home there
What a horrifying idea. Do the opinions of businesses and residents already there have a say? Doesn’t the siting of ‘permanent homes for travellers’ make the contradiction obvious? Why can’t they buy homes like everyone else then go off travelling when they want? Who else can claim space to live exclusively amongst their own group? Would anybody else be able to apply to live there? Maintaining the out-dated concept of preserving this ‘way of life’ cannot be justified, especially when the needs of so many others in society are not being met.Surely a realistic, honest approach should be taken to this situation – it is no longer feasible.