Discussion
This page is available for your comments and feedback, that is not linked to specific posts and articles. Please use it for expressing ideas, suggestions on how we can make sure our voice is heard.
Important
Any views expressed in comments on this site are the property and responsibility of the individuals who make those comments. The administrators of the site reserve the right to delete or edit any comment which they believe to be offensive or in violation of any law, but take no responsability for doing this in a timely manner.
Please exercise restraint when making a coments. Keep on topic, and remember that this is a public forum.
A district councillor has said he “will not accept” a report suggesting 114 new travellers’ pitches should be provided in the south of Cambridgeshire by 2031.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-15428657
By: Knessworth Community Group on October 25, 2011
at 8:34 am
Can the Council buy this and use the space for local Allotment rentals?
By: Anonymous on July 15, 2011
at 5:06 pm
At the previous village meeting, it was bourght up that kneesworth house hospital were installing 19ft fences surrounding there site,which also runs along side the river and along pathway of 1198. surley as they are errecting these said 19ft fences (availale to see at planning online south cambs) could’nt they buy this land and utilise it for there own purposes? as they are building a new high secure unit for 450 cat A-C residents, im sure they could do with the land and help out the villagers for once maybe?
to be honest i think if you asked the travellers they wouldnt want their family to live on the door step of a criminal insane hospital.
Also it was mentioned that the greenhouses acrossed from the proposed site, had been denied a extention on the entrance for saftey of traffic turning and for the expansion of traffic of businesses(units).
why isnt the unused travellers site toward meldreth being used? why develop another? surely fix what is already there?!?!?
By: Mr on July 15, 2011
at 12:36 pm
ARE THE PEOPLE OF ROYSTON AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING JUST UP THE ROAD FROM THEM?
By: JAMES NICOL on July 15, 2011
at 8:09 am
I also wonder why South Cambs continues looking for not only unneeded sites…..but also the fact that they no longer have an obligation under the present Government to do so….
As the figure show..we here in South Cambs already have more than our share of traveller sites.
It is time that the already streched budget completely dropped any more proposals and further wasted money on discussions until forced to do so by the Central Government
Roger Ford
By: Roger null Ford on July 14, 2011
at 12:22 pm
I would like to know answers to some basic questions?
1. Why has the land been offered to the council? and not a building developer?
2. I have been told that the son of the land owner is a VERY local man who has a business in Bassingbourn and wants to move to the North of the UK urgently?….. is this why he has offered the land to the council (for a quick sale) I have also been told he is a ‘community type’ man???????……
3 Does anyone know how much he wants for the land £? and i have been told about a plan of buying the land from him by local people? This could be a good idea depending upon total cost? and local peoples commitment?
4 Will Andrew Lansley support us? or is he still hiding from the public?
One of my main concerns if it is developed as a gypsy site is the possible polution of the river and damage to the environment.
By: Anonymous on July 11, 2011
at 9:19 am
On point 3, this is something that has not been considered up to now as where a small community – and it has been assumed that we could not raise the funds. But is that the case?
By: kneesworthcommunitygroup on July 13, 2011
at 10:39 pm
Update….. He did apply for planning permission for the land but it was refused?………..so the only alternative is to possibly ‘set it up’ as a gypsy camp and earn some revenue from what is now really a ‘white elephant’?…………Maybe we could get it at a ‘reduced rate’?
By: Anonymous on July 14, 2011
at 8:07 am
Second thoughts????…… it could be quite expensive??? >>>>
http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-prices.asp
———————-
By: Anonymous on July 14, 2011
at 8:23 am
Is this similar?
1 acre = 4047 m²
http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-for-sale.asp?id=13514
£80G …….
By: Anonymous on July 14, 2011
at 8:29 am
The closing date for comments on the Government’s consultation on the new policies for Gypsies an Travellers site is now the 6th of August 2011
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/travellersitesconsultation
By: Anonymous on July 5, 2011
at 10:37 am
The Government is currently working on producing new guidelines for the evaluation of Gypsy and Traveller sites, it is seeking views from the ‘Big Society’ on the policy document.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/travellersitesconsultation
My reading of the document leads me to believe that the following should form part of the policy.
• There should be an impact assessment of any proposed site which would cover not only environmental issues but also the impact on the culture of the local community.
• That no one area of an authority should have an undue concentration of travellers sites
• That authorities should make public any interpretation or extension of the policy regarding travellers sites i.e. Travellers wish sites to be within certain distances of each other before a decision is made..
• That there should be a publicly available plan of all proposed, actual official and unofficial Gypsy and travellers sites within a local authority area.
• That cultural differences between different Traveller and Gypsy groups and stresses be made clear when deciding site location. If these issues are likely to cause difficulties then what should be the impact on the planning decision.
• Where the occupants of the sites are self employed the impact on the local population should be included in the planning assessment.
• There is an absence of crime statistics re those associated with traveller and gypsy sites, these should be recorded and made public, in order to allay public misconceptions.
By: Anonymous on July 3, 2011
at 2:54 pm