Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.