Appendix B – Formal Representations Schedule for Site 87 (Land

Appendix B – Formal Representations Schedule for Site 87 (Land North of Kimpton Parkway)

258 objections (out of 765 representations) were redacted because the council judges the objections to be either offensive to or to

discriminate against individuals or groups on grounds heritage, ethnic or national origin and are not appropriate to be published.

The council is bound by the Equality Act 2010 which applies to those providing services and public functions and prohibits direct and

indirect discrimination and harassment all of which these types of remarks might amount to.

Page 981

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response3 C.Greenwood 3 Object Regarding your planning policy for site S87 (the Traveller's site).

I think it is appalling you're thinking of putting it on ground that was meant to be used for burials, surely there should be a covenant on the ground, and it would be disrespectful to use it for anything other than burials.My wife and I have brought up our children in this house and lived here more than 34 years, and our house would be something to leave for the children, so can you guarantee our house will not go down in value once the travellers arrive.

The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

4 Worried SuttonCitizen

4 Object No thank youTo any travellers sites anywhere in sutton.It will prove disastrous and bring down the good name of Sutton, overstretch our local services which are overworked as they are now, so no no no


6 Mr. PA. Jury 6 Object I wish to register my objection to the proposed travellers site at the Kimpton Park Way, for reasons below,1. There is already large developments under way in Sutton thereby increasing population2. Services at hospitals and GPs already under pressure3. The traffic situation bad enough in Sutton, and Gander Green Lane in particular with Kimpton Estate4. Waste problems - fly tipping already evident in area.5. Sutton schools known for their excellence, don't ruin it by overcrowding6. Most other services, along with 3 main emergency, will come under immense pressure with recent funding reductions

In conclusion this proposed site is far too big for the area, don't bring Sutton down from 3rd best town after Richmond and Kingston. Traveller sites already at Oaks Park and along A3. When its done its too late and the area will never be the same

P.S. Next to cemetery - Really


8 Brian & Jill Lemon 8 Object We, Brian Lemon and Jill Lemon wish to register our objections to the proposed permanent travellers site located on land north of Kimpton Park Way The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

9 Mrs Price 9 Object I am writing to register my objection to the proposed 194 permanent pitches at the above site.In the immediate area the schools are already unable to accommodate the populous - our local G.P's are already over loaded - as is our local hospitals, and other services, such as Police, ambulance services etc.I feel sure this site could be used for other useful services for our community I have lived in this borough all my life and at the above address for over 50 years - please give this letter and all the others you will receive, your urgent consideration, and I trust this proposal will bestopped


11 Mrs. E.M. Hills 11 Object I am writing to strongly OBJECT to having a travellers site on land north of Kimpton Park Way The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

12 P Chitty 12 Object I AM against This SiteI have not been informed by post regarding the above site issue what evidence have the Council of who they have informed they must have logged who they told


13 S Hume 13 Object Governors at Glenthorne High School believe it would be highly inappropriate to site a Gypsy/Traveller on an area of land which has been safeguarded for burial space and which is part of the Metropolitan Green Chain and Metropolitan Open Land. The council's own figuresshow clearly that there is no need for this extra capacity.


16 Colin Quigley 16 Object I strongly reject the proposal of using this space given its location along a main route in & out of London & with a place of rest on the other side. Come on! We all know what it will end up looking like on the days that LBS street teams cannot or don't attend to clean up. These siteswithin built up areas always breed contempt. Kippa have worked very hard over the last 10 years along with the council and have totally transformed our Kimpton Estate for the better. We want it kept this way.


18 Lesley Hickman 18 Object 100% AGAINST.

We would actually consider moving if this were to go ahead.We would not like our customers and suppliers visiting us. Plus we have been broken into in the past and now have bars on the windows but this new site would make us feel even more unsafe.


19 Rowland Coombes 19 Object I am writing on behalf of Rowleys Decorators Merchants regarding the proposed traveller site, adjacent to the kimpton Estate.

I feel that the site will have a downgrading effect on an area that has been moving in a positive direction over the past few years.

It is our view for both local residents and traders on the Kimpton estate, that the proposed site could have a detrimental affect on the values of properties in the area and potentially discourage the use of the estate.

If we were able to cast a vote it would unfortunately be against the proposal.


22 Nikkie Fletcher 22 Object I am a Director and Shareholder of an IT Business on the Kimpton Road Industrial Estate in Sutton and would like you to note my concerns about the proposed Traveller Site at the Junction to the A217 on the Kimpton Park Way.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to provide land for this alternative lifestyle, I cannot understand the logic behind putting the site in an already over congested area, next to a graveyard and a very busy industrial estate.

We have been based on the Kimpton Estate for over 20 years. The recent expansion of the estate has been positive but has caused major traffic and parking issues which are getting worse by the day. More vehicles using the area, particularly that section of the A217 will onlyexasperate the problem.

Please consider more suitable sites in the borough that will not cause so much disruption.


23 Auto ExpressServices

23 Object We oppose the following planning application.

LBS Prosed Plan for a GYPSY and TRAVELLER site in the Sutton Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options Consultation.


24 Will Brockbank 24 Object On behalf of Hire It / Inspire Hire oppose the planning application for a travellers site in Kimpton Park Industrial Estate.

LBS Proposed Plan for a GYPSY and TRAVELLER site in the Sutton Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options Consultation.


25 Laurie Evans 25 Object I note that one of the proposals contained in your consultation document is consideration for the use of a piece of land on the Kimpton Industrial Estate as a Traveller Site, alternatively a graveyard.

After some consideration, I feel I have to add my voice to those opposing the first stated option.

Whereas I have indeed, after a lifetime's observation, and some personal experience, developed very serious misgivings about Travellers in general - relating to crime and nuisance - I tend to agree that one should not generalise from one's own experiences to pre-empt fairconsideration of the rights and opportunities of others who may share a tarnished label. I'm also aware that LBS has duties under nationally-mandated quotas, and that better sites are not easy to come by, so that I recognise the bind in which LBS finds itself.

However, I can see - and I can support - objections which are likely to be raised by those affected.

(1) Proprietors of businesses on the estate will be very concerned for their unattended premises overnight and over weekends and holidays. Crime has long been a concern and will remain so, despite the introduction of a CCTV system which has certainly helped reduce itsincidence. Presently, the estate is not frequented by persons outside of business hours, so that anyone wandering around or through the estate will, at present, attract attention and will, in case of an incident occurring, be in line for easy tracking and identification. If the estateshould gain new, non-business residents, who will routinely be active out of hours, their presence around the businesses will not be remarkable, and anyone from that site who was identified in proximity to the scene of an incident would have a plausible reason/excuse to bethere. And they would quickly plot the locations of the CCTV and if of nefarious intent, adjust their m.o. accordingly. Indeed to place residents of any kind into a significant industrial area such as the Kimpton is inappropriate, detrimental to security, and may be just asking fortrouble. Proprietors have every right to be concerned, and I include myself in that.

(2) The estate is close to a good deal of residential housing, the occupants of which are already not especially keen to have industrial estate adjacent, and the presence of a Traveller site will compound their concerns. So it is not just the estate proprietors who have something tolose. The inevitable noise and rubbish which accumulate around such sites would be very detrimental to the area. I share the concerns of these residents also.

In summary, I would be seriously alarmed if this proposal for a Traveller site was further entertained. Somewhere further away from businesses and from dense residential areas is far more appropriate. In contrast, I find the idea of a graveyard much more supportable. Itsresidents are generally understood to be quiet and law abiding.


26 Nigel Hare 26 Object We are strongly against this proposed site. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

27 Colin Newton 27 Object I understand that this is a very controversial issue, unfortunately their reputation goes before them.

I visited both of the proposed sights to get a balanced view of their suitability.

Attached is a photo of the cemetery next to the proposed site near the Kimpton Industrial Park. I was surprised how peaceful the cemetery was considering its next to the A217 and the entrance to the Kimpton Industrial Park.

Not in the photo but mourners were laying flowers and taking time to remember their loved ones. The road to enter this site will be by the Sutton Life Centre passing a few houses and the small chapel near the entrance to the cemetery.

The other proposed site on the edge of the old Croydon aerodrome/playing fields just seemed more suitable under the circumstances.


27 Colin Newton (Onbehalf of KIPPA BIDLTD)

28 Object I know that our members have been emailing their concerns to you.

It is a very emotive subject, some of them have shown how strong their feelings are.

However the poll that we have taken across our membership shows that they are fervently against this proposal.

Therefore KIPPA BID LTD are against this site near the Kimpton Industrial Park being used for a Gypsy and Traveler site.

On behalf of our members I visited both of the proposed sights to get a balanced view of their suitability.

Attached is a photo of the cemetery next to the proposed site near the Kimpton Industrial Park. I was surprised how peaceful the cemetery was considering its next to the A217 and the entrance to the Kimpton Industrial Park.

Not in the photo but mourners were laying flowers and taking time to remember their loved ones. The road to enter this site will be by the Sutton Life Centre passing a few houses and the small chapel near the entrance to the cemetery.

The other proposed site on the edge of the old Croydon aerodrome/playing fields just seemed more suitable under the circumstances. This was my personal view as well.


1

Page 982

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response28 Deborah Muino 29 Object I would like to object to the proposed traveller site on land adjacent to Kimpton Industrial Park. I have worked on the Industrial Park for 10 years and have seen considerable changes in its fortune. It’s gone from virtually being a no go area, to now being a fairly pleasant place to

work, with many new companies providing services and employment for the area. However, we have major traffic and parking issues on the Estate and any extra stress on the infrastructure could be potentially catastrophic for businesses already suffering from high levels oftraffic. I would also be concerned about the safety aspect of entering and exiting the proposed site due to its proximity to the Sutton Life centre, where children use the library and other facilities.

This proposed area is next to the cemetery which is a very tranquil area, for those grieving to be able to reflect and spend time with their relatives. Putting a permanent camp site next to a cemetery will change the atmosphere and I think an area such as this should be treatedwith reverence. The other proposed site in Hannibal Way is far more suited for a traveller site as it is an area where there is more industrial usage and a readily available green space.


29 Julie Orme 30 Object Hi I would like to bring my concerns about the proposed traveller site next to sutton cemetery1 I like to go over and visit my sons grave as he died at the age of 16 weeks . I go over there a lot and it's quiet and tranquil and gives me great comfort when I sit and talk to him . I have been doing this for the past 26 years2 I feel safe when I'm on my scooter and I don't want to feel intimidated .3 what happens when a service is going on . What would happen if the travellers are trying to pass .4 I am worried about them harming my sons and mums headstones .5 The entrance to the site . That will affect the parking at times when the gates are closed like Easter Christmas Day Sunday's and bank holiday . Many people go on these occasions and many older people find walking difficult so being able to park near the cemetery is important. Many thanks Julie Orme


30 Nigel Kaveri 31 Object It has recently come to light about the proposal of a permanent travellers site in Sutton and myself and my partner are categorically against this idea.It will bring more negatives than positives to our borough- which is an up and coming area currently.Furthermore, we've not seen any correspondence regarding this proposal in our area and neither have people I've asked who live in this area!I shall be contacting my local MP, who I hope is aware of this as the residents of the borough do not seem to be!?


31 Jeff Parker 32 Object I am writing to object to the planning permission for the travellers site on kimpton/sutton cemetery site reference S87. I believe this will destroy house prices which we have worked hard to buy over the years. I don't know how sutton council believed they can get away with this asno one had no notice of this. I still don't think people know of what is going on. Majority of people at the life center meeting didn't find out till the wednesday morning and that was due to people posting on facebook. Sutton council put postings up on there Facebook page lovesutton but failed to mention anything about the travellers site. If this is to go ahead house prices will drop or not be able to be sold as no one wants to live by a travellers site. The site will be an eyesore to the area. The others up by carshalton rd are out the way. I also believe thebusinesses on the Kimpton estate will also suffer. I hope my objection does not go unnoticed as I don't think the residence of sutton will let this go.


32 Resident of ReigateAvenue

33 Object Our first and foremost objections to the proposals to the site near Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park being used for a permanent travellers' site area) will the development of the travellers site be paid for by the hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough(Our guess is the answer is YES through increased council taxes and further reduction in the services of the residents of the borough)(b) Will the increased services to the travellers site be paid for by the hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough(Our guess is the answer is YES through increased council taxes and further reduction in the services of the residents of the borough).In addition, the following should be considered:(a) SCHOOLS - Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local population, even more children will not be able to gain access to the school of their choice(by) DOCTORS' SURGERIES - Waiting times are far too long and no doubt will increase.(c) HOSPITALS - Even worse than our doctors' surgeries. The hospital services are at breaking point.(d) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - The installation of the travellers site will have an adverse effect on the environmental services of the area.(e) 999 SERVICES - Our police, ambulance and fire brigade services are already overstretched and an additional 1,000 people will increase and create major problems on these services.(f) WASTE DISPOSAL - An increase of 1,000 people will require an increase in the waste disposal services. However, the waste disposal services have been cut and reduced services imposed. Again who will pay for extra services - our guess is the hard-pressed residents ofSutton.Finally, we feel that the provision for 1,000 travellers is an additional burden on the already hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough. Sutton Council planners should be rejecting and not be considering the installation of travellers sites in the borough, especially on the siteadjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park


33 Stephen Blake 34 Object On the evening of 16th March I attended the meeting at the Sutton Life Centre with a view to seeing the plans for the future of Sutton. A meeting I only found out about by chance, the supposed leaflet drop informing us of this meeting obviously never happened as only 6 peoplesay they received anything.

I was dismayed and concerned to see that Sutton Council is proposing to use land previously set aside as expansion for Sutton Cemetery as a Travellers Site. S87.

My concerns are many and here are just a few. The local residents of the area around the Kimpton Industrial estate have had to endure many months of upheaval during the expansion and renovation of the Kimpton Industrial Estate. The Industrial Estate is now used as aracetrack most evenings, Friday and Saturday in particular, by young people in cars and on motorbikes. There is a massive litter problem in the area and during summer months the Fire Brigade has had to attend various fires that have been started deliberately.

The Industrial Units are at last beginning to be filled by new big businesses attracted to the area and many smaller businesses moving into the smaller units. The Council have invested a considerable amount of time and money in this regeneration and are now proposing to putthis development at risk. I have asked some of the businesses on the Industrial Estate their views on the Traveller Site proposal and to a man they have said that they would not support it and if the project was given the green light they would seriously consider moving out of theKimpton Industrial Estate.

This could have a big impact on employment within the borough as there is no guarantee that any business that left the Kimpton would stay in the borough. There is also the lost revenue from these businesses and the fact that there would be many empty units on the estate thatwould become an attraction to squatters and people who are looking for somewhere to carry out unsociable activities.

There is also the fact that Sutton Cemetery is a place for quiet reflection and contemplation and many people go there to remember and honour loved ones who have passed on, a travellers site right next door is not going to be seen as in keeping with the solemnity of the area.How will it look to mourners who are attending the burial of a loved one if when they enter the cemetery they have to pass right beside the travellers site. It shows a complete lack of respect and dignity for the deceased and their families that the council would even consider sucha proposal as anywhere near acceptable.

There is also the issue that the population of Sutton is growing year on year and the demand for burial plots will therefore increase and at the same time the council decides to give up one of the two areas that have previously been set aside for expansion. This is not planning,this is playing fast and loose with the limited space within the borough and showing a level of disrespect for people's feelings and religious beliefs where burials and loved ones are concerned.

Also there is the issue of access to the site, we were told that there are two possibilities. Option 1 is from the A217 Oldfields Road and Option 2 is from the Kimpton Park Way. Both options are flawed. Option 1 will mean more vehicles turning off the A217 and turning towards thecemetery and when the travellers want to leave the site to get back onto the A217 they will need to right at the Life Centre onto the Sutton Common Road which is a very busy and dangerous junction already. Option 2 would mean that the newly created Linear Park would have tobe breached to allow the road onto the site and this road would be almost exactly opposite the entrance to Wickes and the Self Storage Site, meaning we would effectively have a crossroads just a 100 yards from the traffic lights at Kimpton Park Way and the A217.

Your job is to plan for the future and the proposal is not a plan for the future but a recipe for disaster.

I have not mentioned the impact on the residents as it was made plain at last nights meeting that our concerns are trivial and of no consequence


34 A Resident ofOldfields Road

35 Object Our first and foremost objections to the proposals to the site near Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park being used for a permanent travellers' site area) will the development of the travellers site be paid for by the hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough(Our guess is the answer is YES through increased council taxes and further reduction in the services of the residents of the borough)(b) Will the increased services to the travellers site be paid for by the hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough(Our guess is the answer is YES through increased council taxes and further reduction in the services of the residents of the borough).In addition, the following should be considered:(a) SCHOOLS - Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local population, even more children will not be able to gain access to the school of their choice(by) DOCTORS' SURGERIES - Waiting times are far too long and no doubt will increase.(c) HOSPITALS - Even worse than our doctors' surgeries. The hospital services are at breaking point.(d) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - The installation of the travellers site will have an adverse effect on the environmental services of the area.(e) 999 SERVICES - Our police, ambulance and fire brigade services are already overstretched and an additional 1,000 people will increase and create major problems on these services.(f) WASTE DISPOSAL - An increase of 1,000 people will require an increase in the waste disposal services. However, the waste disposal services have been cut and reduced services imposed. Again who will pay for extra services - our guess is the hard-pressed residents ofSutton.Finally, we feel that the provision for 1,000 travellers is an additional burden on the already hard-pressed residents of Sutton Borough. Sutton Council planners should be rejecting and not be considering the installation of travellers sites in the borough, especially on the siteadjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park


36 Mr Brian Hughes and& Miss L V Waterman

37 Object We object to the proposed site because:(1) SCHOOLS - Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate local children. Even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice. This may result in siblings being split up and parents having to coverschool runs over two different schools.(2) DOCTORS' SURGERIES - Waiting times for appointments are far too long as it stands. These will increase.(3) HOSPITALS - Even worse than our doctors' surgeries, service at breaking point.(4) 999 SERVICES - Our police, ambulance and fire brigade services are overstretched already. An influx of up to 1,000 people is going to create major problems.(5) WASTE DISPOSAL - Cuts have already been made with these services. Are more coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.May I suggest a better use for the site - an extension to the already excellent linear park - I walk there myself - or may be more development towards more job opportunities. I am myself unemployed.


37 Mrs C Egan 38 Object As a resident of Sutton for more than 30 years, I am writing to register my concern at the proposed plan to put a travellers site behind Sutton cemetery.I believe a meeting was held on 16 March 2016 to discuss this matter, however, I was not informed of this. The council have claimed that residents had been written to and informed of this meeting but I was totally unaware of these plans and personally have had nocorrespondence regarding this.I am extremely concerned as to the effect this huge influx of people will have on our already overstretched doctors' surgeries and hospitals. As it is, these services are struggling to meet the demands of the existing population of Sutton and I fear that this proposal will prove toomuch for our NHS services.Obviously, there will also be effects in other services such as waste collection, policing and fire services.Furthermore, I fear that having a site like this so close to my house will reduce the value of my property and this is unfair to all local residents. Why should WE be penalised in this way? I am shocked and disappointed that Sutton council have approved this proposal.


38 Sean Channon 39 Object I would like to express my dismay that I have had to find out about the plans for the proposed travellers site at "plot S87" via social media.

As a member of the local community I do not feel this matter is being communicated appropriately. Today is the first time this has been brought to my attention which I feel shows a disregard to the local home owners that will be mostly affected by this designation.

With the very little information I have had to gather for myself I would strongly oppose this site designation, purely on grounds that I have not been fully informed on the plans or the potential effects of this proposal.


39 Aimey Shears 40 Object It is with a frustrated and vexed concern that I contact you in relation to the proposals for the above mentioned sites.

I would like clarity on the appeal process. The consultation document is very methodically set out and I am suspicious that there is some fine print that may imply that to protest one is required to answer every question? Is that the case? Or can the local residents protest one ofthe areas?

I can assure you that there will be a number of residents making our voices heard and sir, you will be hearing the people sing...singing the song of angry men!


40 Mrs L. McCarthy 41 Object I have been reading about the proposed Travellers site opposite Wicks. The entrance through the Cemetery is sacrilege.I am completely opposed to the above for many reasons, mess, noise - our schools are overcrowded as it is, more traffic thatwill block up the roads, and most probably horses coming onto the site. No this is the worst Council idea I have heard of.

I understand that Tesco is absolutely against it - and so are all the local residents.


2

Page 983

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response41 Brenda Andrews 42 Object We strongly object to a travellers site being sited at Kimpton (S87)

A travellers site at Kimpton will have an unduly adverse impact on the local area.It will send house prices spiralling down. We have 2 houses in the immediate area and if this goes ahead we will sell both houses and Sutton will lose a rented house and a family will have to find alternative accommodation.The potential for noise and air pollution on an already heavily used road will impact the local environment.The local schools will have to find places for new children in what is an already oversubscribed service.Car and house insurances will go up as will I'm sure our council tax to pay for this site.

I moved to Sutton over 20 years ago and have been very happy here. But I will not stay and retire in Sutton with a travellers site just up the road from me. I would not feel safe and we will definitely move out of the area.


44 Mrs Sally C Jones 45 Object I am writing to protest most strongly to the proposed travellers site.

I have recently deceased relatives buried in Sutton Cemetery, and can't believe that a council would even consider this site next to a place of rest, it's a place where grieving relatives go to sit and pay their respects in silence by the graveside, I can imagine with horror how thepeace and tranquility will be devastated by the noise of 1000 travellers a stone's throw away, and I can see them racing motor bikes or the like through the cemetery causing God knows what damage.

I work as a Doctor's receptionist, and as such I know the unacceptable waiting times for an appointment there are already in the borough without all this invasion into our lives.

The value of our property where we have lived for the past 31 years, and spent thousands of pounds modernising and extending, will be drastically reduced, our insurances will increase in cost, how will we be able to go away on a restful holiday knowing these people are aroundthe corner.


45 Claire Brain 46 Object I wish to object to this ghastly proposal. Sutton isn't like it used to be and this will make it far worse. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

46 Gary Cottell 47 Object i am e mailing further to local North Sutton newsletter to register very strong objection to the proposed Gypsy site due to the proximity to the cemetery plus objection to setting up Gypsy site in residential area , also why such large potential expenditure of council budget whenproposing cuts - funds should be spent on local projects/residents


47 Neal Pearson 48 Object I have recently been informed of the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way – S87. Unfortunately this came not from Sutton Council as most would expect, but from social media and local residents.

MY FAMILY AND I ARE ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY AGAINST PROPOSAL S87.

It is a disgrace that this has been put forward and shows what little respect the council has for the hard working family community based in the location, faced with in your words “unprecedented funding cuts.”

The fact that the proposed site sits next to Sutton Cemetery where many local residents have their loved ones laid to rest makes this proposal highly insulting and inappropriate. This one aspect should have stopped this proposal in its tracks.

This green land should be preserved for the future expansion of Sutton Cemetery and act as it does now, as a buffer between the cemetery and the A217.

The development and success of the Kimpton Trading Estate and the opening of new businesses alongside Tesco and McDonald's has been fantastic for all. How long will any of them be prepared to stay?

We then have the highly successful Glenthorne High School sitting a short distance away on Sutton Common Road. With school spaces at a premium I have no doubt that the Traveller site would get preferential treatment for the intake of pupils at the expense of local childrenwhom have grown up in the area.

The Sutton Life Centre and Harvester Public House on Sutton Common Road would become idle.

Traffic at this dangerous junction would also increase.

Local feeling is very strong that at a stroke a good family area with now good local amenities would be destroyed.

And what would be the financial cost to us the tax paying residents? I am told in excess of 1 million pounds. That is when you tell us you are going to “change, reduce and stop more services” to save a further 31 million pounds.

I would appeal to you to stop this now and end the worry and upset for local families already under pressure in their daily lives.

Please support your existing residents in this location.


49 Ben Amphlett 50 Object Regarding the ludicrous ill-conceived notion of a traveller's site in plot S87, I wish to raise my heart-felt objections - echoed unanimously amongst my neighbours.

If there is no better place to locate this proposed travelers site, then I suggest there must be no suitable place at all. For a place of solemn reflection and tranquility such as a cemetery, it seems an insult to those resting there to introduce a community in such close proximity.

Further the already too-far-stretched public services in the area can hardly be pleased at the introduction of even more residents to the area.

Nearly half of my salary goes towards taxes - which I would be more than happy about if I thought they were going towards benefiting the community rather than instead lowering the quality of life of the vast majority of residents.

I have very little in the way of faith remaining in the bureaucracy of the area, and this would be the final nail which persuaded me that change was needed.


51 Debbie Jenkins 52 Object I object to the above proposal The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

52 Gary Emery 53 Object I strongly oppose the proposal to build a traveller site at Kimpton Park Way. I believe this will affect the local area negatively, detracting people from walking through the area and disrupting the harmony of the community. I think it is very disrespectful to place the site onearmarked burial land and adjacent to Sutton cemetery and think this will impact negatively on funeral services. The way the Council has gone about the whole process is very underhanded, having not informed residents within the area of this proposal which would impact thearea hugely, including house prices and local trade. Additionally, those with children within the borough would have even greater problems with schooling places. I think the Council should be putting the needs of current residents within the ward first and consider the currentissues with lack of housing for local residents instead!


55 Marilyn Pacitti 56 Object It has just come to our attention that there is a proposal to make a permanent site for travellers, on land north of Kimpton Park Way.... for 194 hard standing pitches !!!!

This i am informed, all the residents had been made aware of , from yourselves by letter.... BUT anyone I have mentioned this to knows absolutely nothing about it !!!

Therefore i would be grateful of a copy of such a letter, IF it wouldn't be too much trouble and so i would presume would most the residents of Sutton !!

We are against this proposal for many reasons not least of all the fact of up to an extra 1000 people could be entering the area, let alone the amount of flats going up in Sutton, and the extra people that will entail, a few thousand more one would predict !!..We have a Doctors surgery whose books are full to overflowing , stretched to the limit with waiting times getting longer and longer.

Hospitals are also past stretching point , with the never ending proposed closure of St Helier Hospital popping up almost yearly, but more and more people moving into the area...

What of the school places for people already living here, their children will be forced to go further afield , or same families being at 2 or 3 different schools... making life for parents more and more difficult , when these things could be avoided!!Some schools like Glenthorne being made bigger to accept a lot more children into each year!!! with yet another knock on effect of more and more traffic ,we have Tesco at one end with the industrial estate , Asda at the other end which as far as i know we received noconsultation about yet again!!! did we need it .....NO .... Sutton Common Road is now horrendous for traffic taking 20 minutes to move 50 yards.....How many more people can you fit in an area without making life harder, cutting more facilities , (Which will no doubthappen)..... and like the Sutton Life Centre , this being absolutely a waste of money and still losing thousands every year...Would it not be a good idea to get the basics right first before introducing yet more hardships to the people that voted you in to run the area ....

The whole mess mentioned above needs immediate attention from a council supposedly looking after its residents...


56 Jeremy Gould 57 Object I've been made aware of a planning application for a Traveller's Site at Plot S87 by a leaflet through my door from a concerned local resident. It claims that you have written to me to notify me of the application, but I have not received any details from the council.

Can you please provide me with details of the planning proposal ASAP so I can review and have the opportunity to comment and raise any objections if I feel it necessary.


57 Juliet Peddle 58 Object As a local resident I am disgusted over the way the council have tried to sneak in plans for the above plot. I received no notification of the meetings being held. I think the fact you are even considering putting a travellers site next to a graveyard is deplorable, you should beshowing respect to the dead!

I do not want this site where it has been proposed, the traffic is horrendous already on my road without adding more. School places in this area are incredibly hard to get, schools are full to bursting, it is absolutely ridiculous to consider making a bad situation even worse.

I have been informed there is no funding for this, I would rather have seen the mobile library remain than waste money on what is going to be an eyesore and a nuisance to local residents.

As a Sutton resident, I am totally disgusted with the council for the underhand way this has been dealt with, roll on the next elections!!


59 Ms Frances Baller 60 Object Please would you address the local residents as soon as possible about this site, which I understand, is a proposed Travellers’ Site.

By delaying an open discussion you are allowing bigoted, prejudiced and uninformed people to incite local residents who are, at present, being given information only by these unidentified people.

I have now received two leaflets, I did not go to the meeting at Sutton Life Centre on 16 March because it was anonymous, poorly spelt and ended with the wording, ‘please come and make your presence be heard’ To me, this was a very aggressive request. The latest leafletdelivered this morning, (Sunday), was no less aggressive with only anti comments in their bubbles. i.e: ‘local business could be affected as people may not want to pass the site or sit in added traffic’, and, ‘the affect the site will have on funeral services and visits to the cemetery’

Although it is doubtful there are any positives to additional works in this area, when the information is totally one sided and I saw what I thought were fair, open-minded friends coming back from the meeting, asking why I wasn't there and very fired up with anti comments, I wassurprised. When I explained some of my views there was silence but I couldn't work out whether I'd lost their friendship or whether they hadn't thought of looking at the subject in a fair manner.

In terms of the bubble comments on the latest leaflet, I’d love it if people felt they couldn’t pass the site in their cars, less traffic, brilliant, but to me, the local businesses are mainly for builders etc and they just want to get materials, they won’t be bothered about the surrounds.Sutton Cemetery has got to be one of the least visited cemeteries I know. It is a lovely peaceful site but would this be changed by the proposal?

This is one of the things you need to let us know, I'm not this angel welcoming all to the borough without worries, just a person who wants more information and is not swayed by hearing all the negative comments. I have been in horticulture all my life and have met and knownquite a few Travellers throughout these years, they have their own way of living, proud and loyal to each other, of course there are duds in any group but then Clensham Lane has had it’s own share of duds as have all streets in the borough.


3

Page 984

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response60 Lyn and Douglas

Jenkins61 Object We attended the public consultation at the Sutton Life Centre on Wednesday 16th March. Although we had received notification of the meetings regarding the Public Consultations that were taking place it was clear that many people attending the meeting had only just heard

about them via social media.

We intend to complete and return the consultation by 8th April but feel very strongly about the proposals for item S87 regarding the option of a permanent gypsy and traveller site. We oppose the option of S87 land north of Kimpton Park Way for the following reasons:

1. Loss of Income.Companies considering renting units on the Kimpton Industrial Estate may be discouraged from doing so if the use of the adjacent land was given over to a Gypsy and Traveller site. We understand that the current users on the estate have strong objections to this proposal. Thiscould have serious financial implications regarding loss of business rates to the council and result in empty units on the estate.

2. Traffic congestion and possible illegal camping.The A217 is already recognised as one of the most congested roads in the UK. Further traffic control to enable access to the Gypsy and Traveller site would only add to this problem. In addition there could potentially be problems of additional travelling caravans campingillegally on the cycle track which runs immediately adjacent to the proposed site.

3. Land adjacent to Sutton CemeteryThe proposed site would border directly on to Sutton Cemetery, the land of which had been earmarked for use as an extension to the cemetery in future. The cemetery is very well maintained and many of the graves are obviously visited a great deal as there are tributes to lovedones throughout. It is currently a tranquil spot which would be in danger of being spoiled should a Gypsy and Traveller site be erected.

4. Pressure on school places.Schools in this part of Sutton are already oversubscribed and this would exacerbate the problem.


61 Lynn Andrews 62 Object I have sent a letter but am also emailing about the proposed traveller's site application.I feel very strongly that this is very ill thought out decision.The impact on the community is going to be detrimental and this is unfair to residents in the area as well as Tesco and schools etc.How many travellers are going to be housed on this site?I am angry that we have been informed of this proposal at the 11th hour we have had no correspondence or visits from Sutton Council nothing at all. Surely we deserve a visit in person from the Council.

Would the people who work in the planning department like this on their doorstep? House prices will tumble and it will have an impact on the area as a whole especially the Cemetery. We do not want this to go ahead and I for one will fight it.


62 David Robertshaw 63 Object As you are our local councillor I thought I would give my opinion on the proposed travellers site at the back of Sutton cemetery.I think that the proposed site so near a residential area is such a ridiculous idea, and it would bring down the area so much because you know as well as I do that the area would then have 2 dumps instead of 1 council run dump, the rubbish would be everywhere because whenthey move on they leave a lot of rubbish behind, I cannot understand why the Sutton council would even consider a site there. And have the retailers on the Kimpton estate been consulted, because they would need to get their security updated.

I have spoken to a lot of my neighbours and they cannot understand why that plot has been chosen, why can't the council consider a site at the vast area between Hackbridge and Beddington and Beddington park to the south where they wouldn't upset anyone.

And also did the council consider how the value of the properties would depreciate because who wants to live next to a gypsy site, I for one wouldn't have moved here had I known, because I am a resident of Clensham Lane which is just the other side of the bypass. So to sumup I strongly oppose the plot S87 idea.


64 Mr and Mrs de Bruin 65 Object Further to correspondence received regarding the proposed permanent travellers site near Kimpton Industrial Estate, we would like to put in a formal objection towards this.

Our local resources and services are already at capacity and feel that by adding this site will be overloading the local services even further.


65 Ruth Mantell 66 Object I was surprised and concerned to hear about a possible travellers site being set up through Alconbury Close, Sutton (behind Sutton Cemetery ) The site has apparently been allocated for approximately 194 hardstanding pitches.

These are my concerns,

How will the local area cope as schools & GPS are already at bursting point.

More traffic will be created on an already congested A217.

Allocating an area behind a cemetery would be disrespectful to the families who have loved one's there and want to mourn their relatives.

Rubbish, noise and the effect on local businesses and the community.

The expense of turning this area into a travellers site.

Could you consider the above before allocating this site to the travellers as many people also share the same concerns and are worried about the proposed site.


66 Donna Robertshaw 67 Object I have been informed by my father regarding the proposed travellers site at the back of Sutton Cemetery.

I know from speaking to a number of local residents they are extremely unhappy with this proposed plan. This would obviously have a detrimental affect on the area. Please can you explain why no one has been consulted regarding this?


68 Melanie Clark 69 Object It has been brought to my attention that there is a proposed travellers site located near the Kimpton Linear Park - Sutton Cemetery..

Please see my objections for the proposal

What is proposed is 194 permanent hard standing pitches, which could result in an influx of up to 1000 plus people, where local resources are already greatly stretched. How will this affect our community?Schools- Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local populous, even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice. This may result in siblings being split up and parents having to coverschool runs over 2 different schools.Doctors Surgeries- Waiting times for appointments are far too long as it stands, these will increase.Hospitals- Even worse than our Doctors Surgeries, this is a service already at breaking point.999 Services- Our Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade services are overstretched already, an influx of up to 1000 people is going to create major problems with these services.Waste Disposal- Cuts have already been made with these services, are more coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.Traffic congestion - increase in EmissionsFuneral services will be affected as this will affect access to the cemeteryStray animals running across the A217 causing accidentsLivestockI cannot see what asset a travellers site would bring to the community, if any proposal was to go ahead, it should be for starter homes and affordable housing for the youngsters who were brought up in the community and are having to rent or move due to the lack of affordablehousing..


70 A Dunnell 71 Object I have lived in Barrington Road (adjacent to Sutton Cemetery) for 53 years now and am horrified and upset to read about the proposed plans for a travellers site.

My main objection to this proposal is the fact that Sutton Cemetery is supposed to be a quiet and tranquil area where families can enjoy a peaceful visit to the cemetery to remember their loved ones and place flowers on their graves. From my bedroom window I can witness thisalmost every day of the week. If travellers are permitted to locate here on a permanent basis, as is proposed, the Cemetery could become a noisy, disruptive area that will be treated with disrespect and families will have nowhere to visit their lost ones in a quiet, dignifiedmanner.

THIS IS NO PLACE TO EVEN CONSIDER PUTTING A PERMANENT TRAVELLERS SITE!!!

From my own point of view also, I fear the peacefulness of this area will be sadly disrupted as well as the problems with schools, GP surgeries, traffic problems and local services etc.


74 Miss S Mirza 75 Object I am a resident of sutton I live on Ranfurly Road. I have been informed that the council is proposing a site located north of kimpton park way to be used as a permanent Travellers site. Which means an influx of 1000 more people in this area.

I only heard about this a few days ago I am not happy about it. I would like to raise my objection to this and would like you to reconsider a different site in sutton.

I moved here in 1998 from Raynes Park. I found sutton a quiet and calm place compared to the rest of London. I liked the quietness. Even the main roads were not as busy as they are now. My street was a little haven. But in the 20 years it has changed a lot.

Some evenings when I come home from work or an evening out seeing family or friends it's really difficult to Park in my street. I cannot find a parking space outside my house and often have to park down the road or in the next the street. My neighbours also have had the sameproblem. When my neighbours asked sutton council for dropped down kerb to park their car outside their house. They were refused as sutton council had changed the law...as the space needs to be a particular size. So there are many houses with parking spaces outsidealready, where as we are not allowed to do it. Which is a hassle for us and creates congestion on our streets and roads. Commuters travelling by train from Sutton Common station park in our street which doesn't help us. More people moving into this area and using trains wouldcreate further congestion on our street.

The local Cheam Park Tesco was excellent when I moved here. You could be in and out quite quickly. Since they decided to expand its become difficult to park there where as before even though the car park was smaller it was easier to park. More people now come to it butshopping at peak hours is difficult and stressful. Which I try to avoid when I can. 1000 more people coming here and using it. This will certainly encourage me to go to other stores out of the area!

The crime rate in the area has also increased. When I moved into this street my neighbours told me they had lived here for more than 35 years and there were no burglaries in this street. It's a safe street she said and our children are safe. This is a neighbourhood watch area. Inthe last year things have been dumped in the back alley ways and 3 houses had been burgled on the opposite side...broken in from the back during the day. It's already changing and becoming an unsafe area. Bringing in more people will create more problems and furtherstretch the overstretched Police service.

St Helier Hospital is very stretched already. For blood tests unless u get there really early there are massive queues. Once I took my elderly mum there and had to wait for almost an hour and a half. It was packed. More people in the area will not help the situation.

Another thing it's a very busy traffic area. The A217 is busy during peak hours and weekends especially the part near Gander Green lane. Sometimes I get caught in it coming back from work. More people driving in the area will add further congestion to our Roads. I avoid goingout locally at these times at the weekend.

I hope you will reconsider your decision!


4

Page 985

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response76 Carron Gibson 77 Object Please see my objections for the proposal

What is proposed is 194 permanent hard standing pitches, which could result in an influx of up to 1000 plus people, where local resources are already greatly stretched. How will this affect our community?Schools- Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local populous, even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice. This may result in siblings being split up and parents having to coverschool runs over 2 different schools.Doctors Surgeries- Waiting times for appointments are far too long as it stands, these will increase.Hospitals- Even worse than our Doctors Surgeries, this is a service already at breaking point.999 Services- Our Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade services are overstretched already, an influx of up to 1000 people is going to create major problems with these services.Waste Disposal- Cuts have already been made with these services, are more coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.Traffic congestion - increase in EmissionsFuneral services will be affected as this will affect access to the cemeteryStray animals running across the A217 causing accidentsLivestockI cannot see what asset a travellers site would bring to the community, if any proposal was to go ahead, it should be for starter homes and affordable housing for the youngsters who were brought up in the community and are having to rent or move due to the lack of affordablehousing.

Please think of us the local residents who pay their council tax.


78 Ronald Leggatt 79 Object I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed planning of a traveller site at this venue. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

79 Ros Grinham 80 Object Please add me to the list of objectors to this proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

82 Melissa Carmichael 83 Object I wish to register for extreme objection to the proposed permanent traveller site and the above location. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

83 David Barnes 84 Object We would like to add our voice to the concerns already raised by other local employers about your proposed plan for a GYPSY and TRAVELLER site next to the Kimpton Industrial Park. We are a large local employer and over 50% of our employees live within the borough ofSutton. We have a works group called the employees voice forum and they have expressed extreme concern over this proposal. We as a company also would like to register our distress over this proposal. We are part to a large Swedish group of companies and we worked veryhard as a small part of this group to keep our site local when we moved (within the Kimpton Industrial Park) in 2014. The main board of directors were impressed with the industrial park and this was one of the reasons we were allowed to stay with in this area. If this plan goesahead we may have to reconsider this decision.


84 Sally Shepard 85 Object We attended the meeting at the Sutton Life Centre on Wednesday 16th March about the future plans for Sutton. I love living in Sutton and I think your fifteen year plan is a wonderful idea. The Cancer Hub sounds excellent, we are very lucky to have such an outstanding hospitalin our borough. The plan for extending the tram line will be a great boost to our transport links.

Unfortunately news of a travellers' site is not so welcome. It will affect the shops and businesses in and around Kimpton Park Way. Customers will be reluctant to go there due to the proximity of the travellers' site therefore making it harder to attract new businesses and shops tothis area. People will not want to live here, the value of our homes will fall, we will be unable to sell them and nobody will want to move to this area. The site will destroy the peace and quiet of the cemetery, people going there will find it unsettling and upsetting.A travellers' site next to the busiest road in Sutton, A217, is not enticing or appealing and will give a bad impression of our lovely town.

Please could you keep everyone in Clensham Lane and surrounding area informed of any developments.


85 Dan 86 Object I have heard that there will be a new gypsy site built near wickes? Please can you advise what the plan is as I think this will be an unmitigated disaster. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

86 Hoosaine 87 Object I am emailing to express my objection to the travellers site being proposed to be built on Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

87 Tasneem Hoosain 88 Object I am responding to the letter about a travellers site being built in Kimpton Park. I strongly object to this being built and think the money could be better spent on the local residents and keep our community safe with more police and more provisions for local people. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

88 Rashida Hoosain 89 Object Thank you for your letter about a proposed travellers site on Kimpton Park Way. I strongly object to this being built and am not supportive of this. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

90 Miss C Fincham 91 Object I am writing in regards to the plans of a proposed travellers site behind Sutton Cemetery and the Linear Park Leading down to the recycling centre.I would like to voice my concerns against the proposed plans.I have lived in sutton for many years and think that having a travellers site will have a detrimental effect on the area. At present the council are trying to regenerate Sutton to bring more business and income to the town this includes more housing which in turn will mean a largeinflux of residents putting a huge strain on our already fully stretched resources.This is also open land which at present can be used by the general public, this will mean less green space in Sutton.Please accept this email against your proposed plan of putting a travellers site in Sutton.


91 Charlotte Dudhee 92 Object I am against this proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

92 Long Island Ink 93 Object We are against the proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

93 Nigel Jenkins 94 Object I object to the above proposal The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

94 Susan Waterman 95 Object Please note I object to the proposed site.I am a resident in Ranfurly Road.

There are not enough school places, doctors or emergency services now without bringing in a significant influx of people that this site would bring.

This site is not appropriate next to the cemetery. I believe the local businesses on the Kimpton estate would not want this and it would discourage new incoming business.


95 Robert Noble 96 Object Firstly can you explain why the local community was not informed of the meeting you held on this matter on the 16th of March !!!I do not agree with putting this traveller's site so close to a cemetery and up and coming industrial and shopping areaIt would drastically lower the tone of what is a very peaceful and family areaWe have just started to get some good investment in the area as well as the countryside walk along and down to the stream at the back of the industrial siteI believe this travelers site will disrupt people trying to have some peaceful time with their lost ones and also out of shopper from the area


98 Claire Davies 99 Object I live on Collingwood Road & I object to the proposed plans I have heard of about a Travellers Site on the A217.

Please let me know if there is a petition I can sign to formally object & what else I can do.


99 Laura Jury 100 Object I'm e-mailing as I'm very concerned about the travelers sight that might be put on the wasteland by tescos on the a217,I think this will be detrimental to the local schools,doctors and hospitals,things are tight enough without putting 194 static homes in the area,as my sons areyoung I'm extremely against the idea,and also I don't think it would be good for the area or residents,I hope my thoughts will be taken into consideration along with a lot of other people that I know have signed petitions and live in the local park farm area


101 Melanie Bell 102 Object I would like to object to the above proposed Traveller's Site, which Sutton Council never informed the local residents about.

I have only heard about this through Facebook and yet it would be very close to my home. I feel that this site would put an immense strain on local resources that are already struggling to meet the current needs of local residents.

It is already difficult to obtain a doctor's appointment and this issue would escalate with such a large number of people set to move onto the site.

The waiting times at St Helier would also increase and are currently already excessive.

Traffic would subsequently increase in the area along an already extremely busy road (A217) along with further litter too.

Furthermore, the local schools would feel more pressure and more residents would struggle to get a school for their children in the local vicinity.

I truly hope that Sutton Council will listen to the resident's concerns and seek an alternative site.


102 Chris Wigmore 103 Object I would like to object to the proposal to build a Gypsy and Travellers Site north of Kimpton Park Way.

I appreciate that travellers need to be accommodated somewhere, but a site right next to Sutton Cemetery would have an unduly adverse impact on the local environment - it would cause a lot of distress to many who have buried loved ones there. The anecdotes suggest thattravellers sites suffer from antisocial behaviour, so housing them beside the cemetery will be seen as disrespectful, even if the anecdotes are entirely unrepresentative. It also strikes me that the land would clearly be best used for expanding the existing cemetery.

I frequently see car crashes at the junction of the A217 and Sutton Common Road. The proposed location of the site would apply pressure to an already dangerous junction; access to and from the site could even be unsafe.

It seems to us that the local services are currently stretched very thin, from our experiences in St Helier's delivery ward and in securing a nursery place for our eldest. The sudden arrival of many travellers would increase the pressure on schools and health services at a faster ratethan they could cope with.

I also have a couple of questions if I may: why is a new site being planned when the Government assessment concluded there was no need? I understand the council's reason is because of overcrowding at the current council site, but why did the Government assessmentdisagree?


5

Page 986

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response103 Ron Penson 104 Object I returned from holiday today to be inundated with letters from community groups concerned over the proposal for a travellers site in Kimpton Park way.

I have several questions

1. What consultation with local residents has taken place .. We are the people who will be affected.

2. What consideration has been given to the immediate reduction in property values, and what compensation scheme is in place. Will the council tax be lowered?

3. What proposals have the local authority in place to deal with the immediate increase in crime, and what security measures are proposed for houses which are likely to be affected ( there is always a higher level of crime in the immediate vicinity of these sites).

4. In relation to the above, we already have a reduction of police officers ( and pcso's) across the borough and street racing along this road at night has never been dealt with.

5. Is there any consideration for compulsory purchase, as houses will no longer be saleable, and would such purchase be at the values of houses prior to the proposal.

I appreciate that the local authority has legal obligations in the regards to permanent traveller sites but this is ill thought out, with no consideration given to people who have worked hard to provide safe and secure properties for their families to live in. At a stroke of a pen someonewho probably lives nowhere near this proposed site is going to inflict misery and fear of crime on its residents. Whilst this appears to be a rant I have first hand knowledge of the issues created by these sites in residential areas.. The crime, the noise, abandoned vehicles, litterand intimidation of people living nearby...have you really considered these issues, I doubt it.


105 Neal Pearson 106 Object I have recently been informed of the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way – S87. Unfortunately this came not from Sutton Council as most would expect, but from social media and local residents.














106 Andrew & MelanieOxley-Wilson

107 Object We've received notification of a proposal before the council for land by Kimpton Park Way to be used as a permanent Travellers site.

While we appreciate that everyone needs some place to call home, we are surprised that Sutton council would even consider this for our community. Local resources are already oversubscribed and under strain. Also consider what this will do to property values. This affectsOAPs who hope to boost their pension fund from the sale of a family home, or those selling their current property to afford their growing family more space.

My husband (cc'd here) and I would therefore like to register our VERY STRONG objection to this plan. Sutton has great potential and is heading in the right direction. We believe the installation of any type of travellers site will be taking several large steps backwards and affectthe community in a very negative way.

Best regards,


107 Melissa Carmichael 108 Object I want to register my objection to the proposed permanent traveller site near the Tesco site in Sutton/Cheam The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

109 Grant Jenkins 110 Object Surprised to learn that the council has supposedly written to all residents in sutton about proposed site for travellers behind cemetery. No letter ever received.I am totally against this plan. NO. My son is buried in sutton cemetery. I do not want this treasured area used for locating travellers.I will also write to our MP to follow up on this email.


110 Tracey Norton 111 Object I am against the proposal as I think it's disrespectful to those who visit the cemetery to sit quietly with loved ones. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

111 Karen Moseley 112 Object I am a local residence and I was horrified to find out the you are planning a permanent travellers site in the above plot. I am disgusted to find this out only because I use Facebook and would be totally unaware otherwise.

I am totally against this going ahead as I feel this would be detrimental to the local area. The local schools are already struggling with the intake that they already have and this would put extra pressure on these schools. I am a fully paying council tax payer and I feel that mytaxes would be of better use improving the local area. I am assuming that if this goes ahead all the residence would pay towards the upkeep of the Borough of Sutton, if not, why not!

Having a traveller site in this location is also very close to the local cemetery and I feel this should be a peaceful place for grieving relatives to visit without and kind of disturbance. The A217 is already a very busy road with numerous amount of accidents, which occurs on aregular basis and more traffic will only add to this.

I would like to know who would be funding the cost of this travellers site and also who would monitor this site regarding refuge etc.

I am totally against this proposal and I feel that the Borough of Sutton has been hiding this proposal because they know the amount of objection the local residence would have.


112 Andrew Podmore 113 Object I have heard that the council is planning to locate a travellers site by sutton cemetery.

I would like to voice my concern about this. Mainly due to the local schools and how it would potentially affect my children from going in the future. Also the local surgery is already at least a 2 week wait for an appointment which will only get worse if this new site is allowed to beused.

I am positive my tax paying money could be used for a better use of this area. Possibly a skate/bike park could be built using the concrete you would install for the travellers caravans.

This will not be good for the area and would put off people wanting to live here. I hope the council think better of it.


113 Douglas Bush 114 Object Better use for site . playground for small children and gardens for local residents The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

6

Page 987

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response114 Dionne Voller 115 Object This e-mail is to register my objection to your proposed permanent traveller site at Kimpton Park at the back of Sutton Cemetery.

OBJECTIONS:

I would first of all like to raise my deep concerns that most of the residents in Sutton have no idea about this proposal. I only found out from a friend about the meeting at the library opposite The Harvester in Sutton Common road last night at 20:30 and therefore too late for meto attend.

I spoke to Duncan Clarke in the planning team this morning who confirmed that the plans were on the Sutton Council website – which I have now taken a look at – although Duncan had to talk me through finding the actual proposal as it was so buried 3 other residents and myselfhad given up after 30 minutes trying to find it !! He also confirmed that they:

(a) put a note in the Guardian paper -

I informed him that we have not had the guardian paper delivered to our street in over 2 years

(b) it was on Sutton Council's facebook page

I had to admit I don't have that on my facebook account

(c) he said the council had paid a 'private company' to deliver postcards to "all residents of Sutton" about this and that I may have just "thrown it out not realising what it was !!

I said that I had seen no postcards and have since checked with friends, family and neighbours all over Sutton and just by doing that I can confirm the following streets have NOT received any information on this ‘proposed traveller site’:

Lymescote Gardens (spoken to 5 neighbours in the road - no one has received any such postcard)St John's road (spoken to a friend and she had checked with 3 neighbours - no one has received any such postcard)Ranfurly Road (spoken to a cousin - she also checked with 2 of her neighbours - no one has received any such postcard)Hill Top (sister and brother in law - they have not received any such postcard)Benhill Road (checked with friend and she said she was not aware that any of her neighbours had received any such postcard)Glenthorne Close (checked with friend - she also checked with a few neighbours and no one had received any such postcard)Ridge Road (checked with friend - she had not received any such postcard)Stayton Road (checked with lady I work with - she had not received any such postcard)

From just my superficial check on Thursday morning that is 8 streets you cannot tell me that all of us have just thrown it away without reading it - I don't think so !!!! I fear that this is going to be pushed through quickly without giving the residents a fair chance to object and givetheir reasons. This is causing a total misrepresentation of local residents feelings on this matter. I think there should be another meeting arranged so you can get a clear and precise feeling of how your local residents feel about this proposal – and beforehand letters sendround to Sutton residents in a proper manner and not these elusive postcards – that have not been delivered to any resident I have spoken to.

Last year, as you will recall Sutton had a problem with an unofficial travellers site which took months to get rid of and cost the council £25k for the clear up once it had been shut down – the rubbish, the graffiti – and the crime rate soared !!!! I am sure you cannot be blind to thefact that local residents do not want a permanent site in Sutton.

We already have problems with:

- shortages in school places, we cannot even support some of our current residents children – but places will be made available to the travellers in schools- St Helier hospital is at breaking point- local doctors surgeries are also at breaking point and it can take over a week to get an appointment in most surgeries in the area.- you would be removing yet another “open green space” and we have too few of those in the first place- Also that ground by Sutton Cemetery has a “safeguard on that area for an extension of the cemetery – I don't see how you can use this land for a traveller site.

I fear that as usual the feelings and wishes of your local residents are being ignored and frankly walked right over – we do not want this traveller site on our doorsteps has Sutton not learned from previous problems and issues with the current sites – legal and illegal we have hadin the past. I would also like you to be aware that there is also a petition going round which has over 1,350 signatures and comments – and none of these residents had any idea of the proposed plans for use of this land at Kimpton Park – (so much for the elusive “postcard toevery resident in Sutton. All these objections via this petition below should be included in your calculations of local residents feelings towards such a proposal the link is:

Sutton Borough Council: Stop The Kimpton Travellers Site - Sign the Petition!https://www.change.org/p/sutton-borough-council-stop-the-kimpton-travellers-site?recruiter=328849385&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=whatsapp

Duncan Clarke in the planning team confirmed that every objection would receive a personal reply – can you please confirm receipt of this objection and I await your reply.


115 Daphne and ArthurThomas

116 Object I understand that a public meeting was held on the 16 March to discuss the above proposal for a travellers site in kimpton road. I would like to place an objection regarding this matter. Firstly, we received no specific information regarding this application prior to the Life Centremeeting. I understand that this proposal was buried somewhere in the Sutton 2031 vision which in the view of one of your planning officers "you will never find until I talk you through it". This brings to mind the thought that this proposal was being implemented through the backdoor. .

Putting the above aside, there is still the logistics problem of bringing further residents into Stonecot area, of school places and the impact on the already nhs. Not to mention the increased traffic in Alcorn Close.

In short we strongly object to the proposal.


116 Anna Milkins 117 Object I am against the proposed traveller's site.

I am a local resident and can not see any benefits of have the traveller's site. This is mainly a residential area and I believe the coming and goings to the site (increased traffic, noise, etc) would be detrimental to the area and the current population. A less residential area might bebetter idea.

I only became aware of the proposed site by the recent leaflet through my letterbox, I have not received a letter from the council.


118 Kevin Gale 119 Object We wish to raise a strong objection to the proposed travellers site at the land North of Kimpton Park Way, which is being considered as part of the Sutton 2031 project.

We believe this will provide no benefit to the local community and indeed be severely detrimental in many ways, not least the impact on the following:

Schools- Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local populous, even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice. This may result in siblings being split up and parents having to coverschool runs over 2 different schools.Doctors Surgeries- Waiting times for appointments are far too long as it stands, these will increase.Hospitals- Even worse than our Doctors Surgeries, this is a service already at breaking point.999 Services- Our Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade services are overstretched already, an influx of up to 1000 people is going to create major problems with these services.Waste Disposal- Cuts have already been made with these services, are more coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.If the land is to be developed we believe this would be much better utilised with consideration to either additional burial grounds, facilities to accommodate school overflows or community leisure facilities.

We understand that by sending this email ahead of the deadline date of Friday 8th April, that this will be treated as formal representation and be "posted" by the planning team for further committee consideration at the appropriate time.


119 Melanie Rogers 120 Object I was informed that you are the planning officer to speak to regarding this subject, however I was refused your email address this morning by a member of staff on the helpdesk, so I have been unable to email you directly.

I was rather disappointed to learn from another Parent at our local school this morning (High view Primary) that the Council are planning/have planned to built a permanent Traveller site at the end of Hannibal Way, CRO 4RW.

I have been given the following information from various local residents in my area and would like the council's input as to whether there is any truth in the matter, or indeed to clarify the facts for me. I need to understand if this is fact or simply local gossip that has got out of hand:

Power League has been served an eviction notice but have not been offered a replacement siteNotification for the proposed plans was published in the Sutton Guardian with a deadline for residents' comments/concerns of 11th March 2016Publication of the above went to press AFTER 11th March 2016St Elphege's School have already made plans to 'bulge' to accommodate the traveller community children that are due to arrive in the area.

As a local resident I feel very strongly about being informed of what is being planned for the area I live in.

I do live in the London Borough of Sutton, but do not receive a copy of the Sutton Guardian.

With regard to council information I only ever receive stickers on my bins and election propaganda through my letterbox.

If there is a proposed development due to take place within the Borough, can you please let me know the council's mandate for sharing information with local residents and those likely to be affected by it?

I am disappointed to think that I have to rely on 'word of mouth' from my neighbours and would like clarity on the official procedures that the Council must surely adhere to.


120 Linda Young 121 Object As a local resident of the area for many years, I do not wish this to take place, they cause disruption and make the vulnerable feel unsafe. They pay nothing towards the borough so why should we feel that this is necessary. Don't the people have a right to live in peace, especiallyas house prices are expensive in this area. This will make selling your house hard. No mention of compensation to the residents that it affects. This could possible knock thousands off asking price, who will be paying that. All residents should get their houses valued right now, soif this does go ahead the price falls you should compensate their loss over this.


121 Mrs K J Deacon 122 Object I am contacting you today to categorically oppose this new proposal to put a travellers site on and near to the Kimpton Estate. It is neither practical or ethical as it will be near to a Christian site that I myself find offensive to say the least. Both myself and my husband disagreeentirely with the council's thoughts of this proposal and are in total agreement in a re-location to any other place within the borough that is obviously not near to a burial site?

Also on the matter of the Kimpton Estate it would also be helpful if the police and the council got together and put a stop to the joy riders that facilitate the roads of that estate to their apparent enjoyment and to the annoyance of the homeowners within earshot? It is actually notgood enough at all.

We are definitely in opposition to the proposal.


7

Page 988

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response122 Ben Hunt 123 Object I am alarmed to read, on Facebook of all places, that a proposed permanent traveller camp is being planned by Sutton council in the vicinity of the Kimpton Road industrial estate.

I have tried to navigate your website for details but to no success. Furthermore, I have received no information through the post.As a local resident, I am extremely concerned by this news and wish to identify the full facts so that, if indeed the proposal is correct, then I can organise a substantial objection.Please would you reply to my email as promptly as possible so that I am able to take the appropriate action.


124 Mrs Lynne Friday 125 Object Please be advised that I formally object to the proposed plan of a Gypsy/Travellers site plan S87Land north of Kimpton Park Way Burial space

I live in Ridge Road, Sutton, Surrey


127 James Aldis 128 Object Can you please confirm if there is a proposed plan for a permanent traveler site in Sutton near the Kempton Industrial Estate? The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

128 Teresa Reed 129 Object I would like to express my strong opposition against plans for S87 Gypsy and Traveller site proposal, as it would be detrimental to the area.Please I want to be inform of any development and meeting related to this proposal.I would appreciate the acknowledge of my email. If you need anymore information, please do not hesitate.


131 Lesley Fisher 132 Object I write to put forward my objections to the proposed Traveller Site behind Sutton Cemetery. Firstly I am disappointed that Sutton Council have not taken adequate steps to inform residents of this proposal. Not every resident gets the Guardian every week and although I do livereasonably close to the site I certainly have not had written notice and a survey of my neighbours has confirmed that they were not in receipt of a letter either. There has been much development on this site in recent years and never have we as 'neighbours' been informed. Thisproposal would not only affect local residents but many from across the Borough who visit the area and therefore should have had much wider publicity.

Although I understand that the Council is 'obliged' to find a suitable site this is definitely not the right place for a number of reasons.1. When the area was significantly changed with all the huge retail businesses it was not obviously ideal for residents but was made slightly more bearable by the green land being restored opposite making it not so 'built up'. We should not lose every bit of green space.2.Traffic is already heavy with visitors to the stores, much of it being heavy lorries, and to add more would be unhealthy and disruptive.

3. By far my most concern and objection is that to site any development either residential or otherwise so near to Sutton Cemetery would be wrong on many counts. Residents of this Borough and others visiting should be given Respect by the Council to bury and visit their lovedones in peace and be able to leave in the knowledge that their loved ones are resting in an appropriate environment. Cars ,children playing and the general 'hubbub' of a Travellers Site is NOT appropriate.

I urge Sutton Council to think very carefully about this decision. I have lived in the Borough for over 30 years and have never felt the need to object to any of your proposals before but on this occasion I really do think it would be wrong to place the Site there.


132 Karen Hall 133 Object I write to post my objection to the planning of plot S87 travellers site behind Sutton cemetery. My main reasons for concern is congestion in the area especially now there is a very busy industrial estate with much heavier traffic especially with a primary school near the dumpwhere parents and children walk There will be more strain and pressure for the local schools, health services etc.

The cemetery is a peaceful and tranquil area a regularly visited area, a respected place and this should taken into consideration also.


133 Daniel Cook 134 Object Against the proposal The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

134 Daniel Cook 135 Object Against the proposal The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

135 Armine Benmoufok 136 Object Can you please register my objection The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

136 Miss S Botterill 137 Object

hubbub


137 Maureen Burchell 138 Object I strongly object to a gypsy site being built at kimpton park next door to a cemetery and in the middle of a very large residential area of young families and many schools locally . We as council tax payers are appalled at this idea and we were never informed of this proposal. Wehave to live with the kimpton road refuse site on our doorstep so are certainly not going to have to live with a gypsy site as well.


138 Jim Harwood 139 Object I write to indicate my complete disagreement with the proposal to put a travellers site behind Sutton Cemetery. The reasons for this are:1. We have one site in the London Borough of Sutton already and do not need another.

2. It will have a bad effect on local business and trade.

3. A possible significant negative impact on the cemetery and services that take place there

If it is absolutely necessary to have another “travellers site” within the LBS boundaries it should be well away from shops or any commercial premises..


139 Leslie Spall 140 Object Let it be known that I object strongly to your proposal for plot S87 in your sutton 2031 document.

I believe the idea of a travellers site on this plot has not been investigated fully.

The effect on the cemetery would be profound. People who have family members and friends should be able to visit and have as little disturbance as possible while remembering loved ones. This would not be the case if you install families in plot S87.

Plot S87 should be used for the expansion of the cemetery when it becomes needed in the not too distant future.

Another objection would be that plot S87 is on the corner of Oldfields Road (A217) and the entrance to Kimpton Road industrial park. There are traffic lights on this junction. Sutton Council would be irresponsible in placing families where vehicle emissions are dangerously high.The health issues of this would be the responsibility of sutton council.

Sutton council had not made anyone aware of the meeting in the life centre which makes the proposals seem underhanded.


140 Yanjun Xu 141 Object I am a resident near this site, but I was not informed or consulted by the council for this development, which will affect my life heavily.I got this development information from online petition and heard from neighbors and friends. No one think the traveller's site and the way the council handle it is acceptable.

We request the council to inform everyone who paid Council tax in Sutton about this site, as it will cost all the tax payers money and affect everyone's life in the council.

We also believe there are better locations in the council to put a traveller's site in than the current proposal to put it next to school, dense residential area, supermarket and cemetery.Since these travellers are using the site temporarily, the location of the site should minimise the impacts to local residents. If they are going to stay in Sutton permanently, they should pay council tax, pay house rent, pay all the bills like each one of us living here. Otherwise,they should carry on their journey and enjoy their life without affecting others life.I suggest to put the site in an isolated place where is not easily accessible to the local residents. If this is not what the travellers like, they can choose not to stay in Sutton.I also worried about it's impact to security, road traffic, school places, and the public transport. Based other free of information act, could I have a copy of traffic, social, environment impact assessments and the funding and proposed site layout / capacity.


141 Lesley Wilson 142 Object I understand that you have proposals for a travellers site.

I live in Leafield Road, Sutton, which is very close proximity to the proposed Travellers Site.

I understand that you had written to the residents of the Borough in this regard, but unfortunately, I did not receive such a communication. Therefore, I should be pleased if you could e-mail me the letter which was sent.

I should also like confirmation of safe receipt of this e-mail, by return.


142 Robin, Tracy andJames Bonavia

143 Object We the above write to raise our objection to the proposal for a travellers site to be located on land north of Kempton Park Way. The proposal will result in an influx of many additional people, where local resources are already greatly stretched. Schools, doctors surgeries,hospitals, 999 services and waste disposal services are all presently struggling to meet the needs of the existing, tax paying, local population. The proposal will be an unwelcome additional call on services that we can ill afford.

We believe that the site could be better used to service the existing community


144 Terry Colliver 145 Object I have just heard about the proposed permanent travellers site at Kimpton road, this site would be to small and to close to fast moving traffic of the a217 and the busy industrial est causing danger for the travellers, residents and traffic.

There are far better sites available off the carshalton road and beddington lane has at least 3 empty plots 1 country skips site, 2 old sports ground by roundabout in beddington lane where travellers already keep their poor horses at present, 3 land by the new incinerator site,allof these sites need something doing with them desperately anyway.


146 Chris Homewood 147 Object I disagree with the council's standpoint. You are ignoring the government's new definition of what is a traveller. Why? And why are you providing an area for Permanent gypsies and travellers when that term is null and void? The overcrowding would no doubt be reduced if thenew definition is applied. If the overcrowding is reduced then new sites may not be needed once the dust has settled and you re-calculate the requirements. Maybe a census can be undertaken and monitored over an appropriate timeframe in order to identify nomadic andpermanent occupants.I12.8 - draft policyConsultation question...12bI agree with the council's draft policy only if the criteria is rigorously adhered to; especially with regard to the "identified need" and with the Government's definition of a traveller applied also. If your standpoint isn't altered, then I disagree with the policy for the reasons mentioned in12a and 12b.

Please confirm receipt receipt and add me to your planning policy consultation database.


150 Kaye & Morgan Quinn 151 Object I would like to express my formal objection to the above proposal. We do not have the infrastructure in this area to cope with the increased population that this traveller site would bring to the area.

A traveller's site would not be an asset to this area at all, as it would bring a lot of problems with it.


8

Page 989

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response151 Debbie Glanfield 152 Object I write with reference to the above proposed Gypsy and Traveller site identified for the land behind Sutton Cemetery.

As a local resident i would like to point out that the council failed to inform all residents of their proposals and it took a hastily produced leaflet from a neighbour to highlight the proposals and the consultation taking place. I had previously received the councils 'Planning for ourfuture Sutton 2031' booklet and am amazed that it made no mention of the site, despite these proposals being an important factor for Sutton's future.

The fears of the local residents of having a Gypsy and Traveller site in the Kimpton Industrial Park area are palpable and should be taken into account when the final decision is made.Having attended the meeting and listened intently to the proposal i feel that the area highlighted should be dismissed as a traveller site would only be detrimental to the growth of the area. The Kimpton industrial park is making great strides to provide commercial units that willpromote the local economy and encourage those from the wider area to work and visit. A traveller site and the negative views and feelings that these sites create can only make people think twice about being in the area.

The proximity of the site to the existing cemetery causes me great concern. When i visit the graves of loved ones, i need private quiet time of reflection and the ability and necessity to express my feelings. Looking through a fence at a traveller site cannot be conducive to thoseneeds.As mentioned in the meeting, your own Local Plan feb 2016 highlights the proposed area as reserved for future burial space and as the attached copy of your document (page 269) shows has been 'proposed no change'. The burial space was dismissed as not being needed foranother 30 years but what happens then? Will the travellers be moved on to make way for the burial sites?

The effect on the extra traffic on the A217 will be immense. The amount of traffic on the roads in the local area is already horrendous and road works creating access roads and entrances for the travellers will cause gridlock in the immediate area. This will subject the localresidents to more noise pollution, just when the kimpton park noise finished, and the increased danger for the children who walk to the local schools past this area.

The site will need to be monitored and maintained but as stated, there is currently no funding allocated for this. Where will the council find the funds required and which services will be affected by this?

There were many unanswered questions from the meeting such as:

What criteria was used to finalise the proposed sites? (Sutton council website is a confusing myriad of links)When did the council change the Feb 2016 Local Plan documents 'proposed no change' status?Why were local residents not informed of the proposals by the council?Did the council hope for a poor turnout as a show of nonchalance to the proposals?Will the consultation period be extended for local residents to express their views?Being in such a highly populated area, have studies been done with regard to the effect on house prices, home and car insurance prices and crime rates? Either increased or decreased.Where will the funding come from for supporting a 'standalone community '?Who will monitor and maintain the site including the local services required?Have the local business owners been involved in the consultation and what are their views?

I would be greatful if these questions could be answered as myself and my neighbours take pride in the area in which we reside and would hate to see an up and coming area of Sutton put to the sword in such a drastic manner.


152 Unreadable 153 Object I though that bit of land were not for humans to live on. It will affect human's health. It is up to you the Sutton council to decide. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

155 Kim Randall 156 Object I understand a permanent location is required for the travellers but the proposed site on A217 opposite the new wicked developments is not suitable for for such a site.

I feel this is area would be detrimental to the local community and the resting place of Maddie.

I hope you could find a better location for for the site.


156 Polly Castello 157 Object I want to add my name to the growing list of people who do not want to see this land used for a gipsy/traveller site.I think it's wholly inappropriate to locate such a site next to a cemetery, and would prefer it to be left as open land or an extension of the cemetery.I would also like to point out how bad the traffic is currently at rush hour in this area, and don't think this would help at all.

I will leaflet and campaign against this in my street, and will ask everyone I know to do likewise.

I urge you to reconsider.


157 Dominic Howard 158 Object I am DOMINIC HOWARD and live in Barringron RoadStrongly object to travellers site at kimpton wayBecause of traffic generated.Strain on local resources .Waste generated.Anti social behaviour .It will cause more traffic at an already dangerous junction . A217 ...


159 Vicki-Marie Donovan 160 Object Can you please tell me if this rumour is true about a proposed travellers site in Sutton? The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

161 Mr & Mrs R A Smith 162 Object My husband and I object to the above proposal as we live opposite in Clensham Lane. If you should need anymore information, please contact me via email. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

163 Peter John Boddy 164 Object for your information i live approx 1000yds from this site and would have to consider moving if this plan goes ahead also my two sons are estate agents and feel the in the price of our properties will be effected which again is not far on the people that have lived and paid counciltax to sutton council for a lot of years whole life times in some cases.


164 Tony Provenzano 165 Object I would like to express my strong objection to the proposal of a Travellers site is adjacent to Sutton cemetery.

I do not feel next to cemetery is an appropriate place. I cannot fathom who in their right minds would think this is an appropriate place to put a travellers site. With the prospects of all the antisocial problems that could spill into the Cemetery area, I do not understand why thepeople who have identified this site as suitable could be so out of touch with the residents from Sutton and beyond. Can we not even rest in peace in our graves once we are no longer here? How disrespectful to those passed and the living relatives. Please do the morally rightthing.


165 Mr & Mrs Willis 166 Object We would like to register our objection to the proposed travellers sight at kimpton park way. Our schools are oversubscribed. We have problems getting a doctor's appointment . I want Sutton to be a clean and tidy place to live . Our children have had to move out of the boroughas there is no affordable houses . Please build houses for people who live in the borough.


166 Gary Roff 167 Object I strongly object to the proposed travellers site wanting to settle on the North Kimpton Park Ind. Est. Our resources are totally stretched as it is with hospitals and doctors waiting times getting longer [ waited a week for a doctor's appointment ]. Glenthorne High School has beenconstantly building for the past 3 years to accommodate even more pupils as have other neighbouring schools. The waste cutbacks has caused litter around the streets. Police resources being cut 3 burglars in our stretch of road alone in the past 4 years. Locating anotherpotential 1000 people, not to mention asylum seekers having houses built for them [ at the taxpayers expense ]. just a few miles away would have a disastrous effect on the area. Kingswood and other further out places have much more room to accommodate where i thinktravellers would be more suited to. So once again i strongly oppose this planning proposal


168 Kitty 169 Object I don't want a traveller's site right next to a peaceful cemetery, it is disrespectful.And also, it is too close to the sutton's outstanding school. the traveller's site will affect too many children.Please please stopI against the proposal.


169 Candida Cox 170 Object I am writing to express my objection to the proposed permanent traveller site at Kimpton. There are many reasons I feel this is an entirely inappropriate site, the main reason is the overpopulation of the area and the knock on effects of this. Westbourne primary school across theroad from the proposed traveller site has the smallest catchment area of all Sutton primary schools. This is due to the density and type of housing in the area and clear evidence of how crowded the area already is. The school is being forced to accept the second bulge class intwo years due to population growth. Two nearby sites have residential housing being built as I write, the old Burger King site and the new Sainsbury's site, which will increase population further. Whilst I realise population growth can be a good thing, it can also go too far anddamage the area. I feel we are already beyond the positives of this phenomena, local facilities are really struggling and the area is just full to bursting.

My property is within 100 meters of the proposed site. Regardless of the truth and of fairness when it comes to travelling communities there is a reputation that precedes such communities, and it is without doubt that a traveller site so near will reduce the price and saleability ofmy hard earned property. Over the past week I have spoken to several estate agents who without hesitation said it would affect house prices nearby negatively. Obviously I am very unhappy about this reality.

I could name a dozen further objections but I feel the above two reasons are enough to register my utter dismay and fear over the Kimpton proposals.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider and find a less densely populated, more spacious site.


170 Mr & Mrs Dicker 171 Object I am sending this email in response to information I received regarding proposal S87 Traveller site at Kimpton Park Way.My objection is the lack of respect for the cemetery adjacent to the proposed site.


171 Lorraine Issac 172 Object We note that you are proposing to erect a permanent site for travellers, near Sutton Cemetery. We would like it you've noted that we really object to this proposal. The cemetery is a place where people go to find peace and visit their lost relatives and friends. It would not beappropriate to have a site like this nearby.

We have experienced travellers in the Sutton Common recreation ground nearby and although this was only for a short period, we were subject to the noise,mess and the inconvenience of not feeling safe in our local park and the surrounding area.

We really hope you take this into account before proceeding as we know so many other people who are against the idea too.


172 Natasha Eftychiou 173 Object I am writing in response to the proposed travellers site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way, Sutton.

I understand that the proposal is for 194 permanent hard standing pitches which could result in an influx of up to 1000 people.

I strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds.

· The schools in this area are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local residents. This land would be better placed for another school rather than a travellers site.

· The local doctors surgeries already have long waiting lists.

· Downward effect on house prices as people will find the houses less desirable with all the local amenities such as schools and doctors excessively oversubscribed.

I would like to be kept up to date on all proposed council discussions so that I can attend in person to raise my objection.


9

Page 990

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response173 June Sullivan 174 Object I have grave concerns about the proposed development and would like to take this opportunity to register my objection to it.

Having worked within the NHS for many years, I am adequately aware of working within constrained budgets.With social resources stretched to breaking point, how are you going to choose who will go without in order to fund this project and maintain it in the future.The site would increase in size, due to natural population growth, and local resources will suffer as a consequence.


174 Stanley Blake 175 Object As a long time resident of Sherborne Road and having experience of previous Traveller occupations in the past I object to the proposals for such a site being part of the plan for this residential area. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

175 Stanley Blake 176 Object As a long time resident of Sherborne Road and with experience of previous occupations by Travellers in this area I object to the proposed site being made available in this residential area. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

176 Janette Hedges 177 Object I am extremely shocked and sickened you could even consider Plot S87 as a travellers’ site. Reasons should be obvious; Access… unrestricted anti-social behaviour…… Cemetery privacy & protection… close to residents and businesses . The whole proposal lackscredibility and I am appalled there was no other possible site proposal. The idea should be dropped immediately. The issue is now on Facebook and Change.org and I hope it's successful.


177 Mr & Mrs Muzzi 178 Object My wife and I live in Ridge Road, Sutton, and we have just made aware of your proposal to build a travellers site in the proximity of our property and next to Sutton cemetery.In the past few months the tranquillity in our area has been disturbed greatly due to the building work that went on in Kimpton Park way and although the noise during the week has increased greatly even now that the building work has completed, we did not make any complainsor oppose to the building plans.We feel that the new proposed building work for the travellers site will make the situation worst denying us of the peace and tranquillity that we required when we are away from work.We also think that it would be highly disrespectful to build a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery.We are opposing the proposed plans to build a Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way.


179 Diana Greenham 180 Object I write to object strongly to the proposal to use the above land for a Gypsy / Traveller site. I have read through the relevant narrative in the proposed new Sutton 2031 local plan and cannot understand the rationale behind the proposal for the use of this land for a Traveller Site(or indeed any new housing development).

If I understand correctly you are suggesting that our community and local area can sustain an influx of possibly up to 1000 people, in a very short space of time, once the site is prepared. If you believe this is viable then I can only assume you are also planning to simultaneouslyprovide new GP surgeries, schools and expand St Helier Hospital to accommodate the new larger community. Where are you proposing to site the new schools and GP surgeries ?

We already have a situation where the local resources cannot cope with the existing number of residents, so how can the planners believe it is reasonable to increase our community population in this way. Your proposed local plan already highlights Sutton has a growingpopulation and because of this we need more resources. How does increasing the population overnight by creating a larger number of new residences help. It is contrary to the need set out in the 2031 plan.

Without creating additional local resources as outlined above it cannot be reasonable to site any new housing on this land, whether it be for travellers or new build housing, Anything that increases the number of residents by this kind of significant number is just not feasible.

I am led to believe that over 100 other sites in L B Sutton were being considered for the new traveler site, I would be interested to know the criteria used to decide that the Kimpton Road site was one of only 2 sites the planners considered to be best suited to this use.

It may be a further review of the process is required to ensure that the selection process was followed correctly.

I also ask how does the use of this space for residential use (whether Traveller or traditional housing), sit with the stated objective in the proposed local plan of “protection of green space” You are not protecting a green space if you then place a large number of residences onit. The land is already safeguarded for Public Open Space, Metropolitan Open Land or Burial space and should remain so.

I also noted in the Local Plan document under 12.5 – Estimate of Need “the assessment identified no need for a new site for Travellers, Roma or Travelling Showpeople” I do not accept therefore that the Council is acting correctly to force the borough to create a new site for thispurpose.

I would suggest a far better use of the site would be to either extend the Sutton Cemetery or the Kimpton Linear Park.


180 Dr Rishmila Mendis 181 Object We live in Clensham Lane and a leaflet was delivered to our door from the Stonecot residents about opposing the proposed Traveller Site at Kimpton Park Way, and this was the first time I had heard about the proposal.

I would like to express my objection to the proposed site, as the negative social impacts/ issues about travellers have been well documented. This area is generally peaceful and a travellers site would change the dynamic of the area...it is also very close to us and would affect ourhouse prices in a negative way. I implore you to please change the plans and let the camp be based elsewhere, away from this nice neighbourhood as we have lived in this house for more than 30 years.


181 Ke Yang & Xin Yang 182 Object We are the residents living in the Sutton on Alexandra Avenue.

I am writing regarding the proposed traveller's site in Sutton. Firstly, I do not understand as Sutton residents why we did not received any correspondence from the council for this matter.

Secondly, we totally disagree to have the travellers site right next to us. The proposed location is very near to the local schools, as parents, we are extremely worried about the safety of our kids.

We live in Sutton because it is a nice and peaceful place to live, if the council decide to set up the travellers site, it will be destruction to the peaceful. As residents, we will be the direct sufferers, so you have to consider the comments from us.

Please consider our comments and decline the proposal.


182 Ron Greenfield 183 Object I wish to place on record my objection to the proposed travellers site on the above mentioned location.

There has not been proper communication and consultation from the council on this. There have been claims that the council has written to residents but speaking with local neighbours and people I know from along Sutton Common Rd and into Cheam none of those people hadalso heard of the scheme or the public meeting and so it is widely evident that the council has not communicated properly on this proposal and one has to ask the question, Why?

There is no detail available on the size of the site and how many pitches it would provide nor what other locations for sites were explored by the council. No case has been made for the need for the site in terms of proposed usage. There has been no comment on the impact it willhave on local schools (i.e. will existing local permanent residents now face a higher risk of their children not getting into the schools of their choice.).

The council has been silent on exactly how the site will be accessed so that residents can consider if that accessibility is safe, no mention has been made of the impact on other local services such as parking, emergency services and no mention on any security and crimeprevention aspects to the proposals. There has been nothing said as to how much it will cost to build, supply services and maintain. When faced with the high increase in council tax is this the best thing to be spending more money on.

Lastly, and most importantly there has been no case made for the improvement or value add that such a site will bring to this location or the borough. Why spend money in such hard times on something that does not improve the lot of your local residents who live here on apermanent basis and are contributing to the fabric of the area. I would be interested to hear the views of the locally elected councillors on that aspect. I would rather pay more for books and learning equipment for the Sutton Life Centre to improve the education of local children orpay for improved social care for the elderly which are vital and important to grow the wellbeing of the local area. Providing a number of concrete slabs for people's unknown to come and go as they wish will not.


183 Christine Sweet 184 Object I strongly object to the council agreeing to put a Travellers' site in this area the Hospitals and Schools and local services are already stretched to the limit.

How can you make such a decision that will affect the whole community without even consulting the community.

I have lived in this borough for over 40 years and have seen it steadily go down hill partly due to overcrowding.It is now almost impossible to get any kind of Dr. appointment when you need it and even getting out of the bottom of my road is now a problem due to the amount of traffic.

Is Sutton Borough Council not their for the people already living in Sutton ? should you not be listening to what they want ?.


184 Lina Yuan 185 Object I have read full local plan, February 2016. The major comments I like to make is about section I-12, Gypsy and Traveller Sites and potential site allocations: S87: Land north of Kimpton Park Way.

1. Conflict information is given based on points I12.4, I12.5 and I12.6. Points I12.4 and I12.5 state no evidence of increase of new travellers in the borough. However, point I12.6 jumps in the conclusion the new sites are still needed regardless due to current site is soovercrowded. Has council investigate why the current site is overcrowded, and is there any potential to expand current site rather than building a new one? Particularly since the traveller’s nomadic tradition has declined (as mentioned in I12.1), do they really want to move fromtheir familiar sites to a complete new area and join a new community?

2. To answer consultation question 12a: Do you agree with the council’s standpoint on the need for new Gypsy and Traveller site? My answer is ‘NO!' My reasons: 1) no clear evidence is given in section 1-12 about how overcrowded is at the current site and how many more pitches are required. 2) No evidence supporting new traveller sites are more urgent comparing to other housing problem in the borough i.e. housing with Care for Vulnerable groups.

3. To answer consultation question 12b: Do you agree with the draft policy on Gypsy and traveller sites? My answer is ‘NO, particularly no at the land north of Kimpton Park Way!' My reasons: The policy lists several criteria about planning permission of gypsy and traveller sites.However, I cannot see the land north of Kimpton Park Way meets them: 1) Road network: the land north of Kimpton Park Way is accessed by A217, which has already saturated by current traffic especially in the rush hour. And Kimpton Park Way always has a long queue of people driving to recycle centre. The roads in the nearby area arenarrow and full of off road parking from local residents. There is no space for extra parking or turning. 2) The application at north of Kimpton Park Way WILL HAVE adverse impact on the local environment. Heavier traffic on A217 will bring more noise pollution to houses along the road. 3) I had no comments on the supply of essential service 4) According to council school website, all schools in west Sutton are oversubscribed. We are currently fighting for the requirement of bulge class in Westbourne Primary. Before building new schools in the area, I cannot see how current schools can cope with a suddenincrease of pupils. Same situation also applies to local healthcare. Several GP surgeries are full to new patients and no big GP surgery in the region either.

I hope my comments could be considered and discussed. Moreover, in the next version of the local plan, could it possible to include in the finance figure please? it will be good to let people know how much it will cost to build a new site and to manage the pressure it brings to thelocal community. As we are cutting essential services in the borough to meet the budget, where does the money for the traveller site come from?


188 Caroline Hadland 189 Object As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed traveller site. I use this area on a daily basis for walking my child to school and I have a mother young child who will be starting school in a couple of years so I will be continuing to use this route for severalyears to come. Currently there is a large amount of refuse strewn across the paths and verges given previous experience this is likely to increase. As the proposed site is planned to be adjacent to the wildlife area/path that I use, I fear that the current tranquility and safety of thisarea may be reduced with the increase in people, vehicles and related activity in such close vicinity. As such I would not feel able to use this route to walk my children any more. We have experienced a significant increase in traffic in recent years. There have been severalaccidents on the crossroads and the increased traffic and people in the area will increase the risks and traffic. As a homeowner I am worried what the impact of the change in use of this land will have on the value of mine and other people's properties in the area.

I hope that consideration will be given to the points I have raised and another more suitable site will be found for the traveller site.


189 Gillian Rhodes 190 Object I write to register my dismay at the news of the proposed permanent travellers site at kimpton park way, and wish to raise my objections.The emergency resources, waste and schooling in Sutton are already suffering under the strain and bringing a further proposed 1000 people into this area would only serve to increase the pressure.Sutton common road has become unbearable with the weight of traffic at all times of the day and often into the evening, school traffic increases this problem and bringing up to 1000 extra people into this area will make this already dangerous road even worse.The doctors surgery cannot take the strain either it is difficult to get an appointment as they are so stretched.This ground would be better utilised for a school or recreational facilities to serve the community.


191 Alan Cox 192 Object I have lived in the area almost all my life, however having recently moved onto Sutton common road, I am disgusted to learn of the way the proposed traveller site is being planned with little information being placed to the community for fair discussion.More upsetting is that the football club could be evicted for this to happen. That club was one of the reasons I chose to move to Sutton common road, as I have a 2.5 year old son who I was hoping would be able to attend the club.Sutton common road is already a traffic nightmare at the best of times, so extra traffic from the proposed site would simply be too much.I urge you to come to SCR at peak times, and then to try travelling down to tesco via the a217 and kimpton road, and then tell me if the area needs 200 more homes (mobile or otherwise). That one bit of greenery left by the estate is a pleasant area to walk through, used byadults and kids alike, please do not take it from us.We all know traveller sites are a bone of contention, generally due to poor waste management and the fact that travellers don't generally move on when they have outstayed their allocated time. I urge you to consider your tax payers and show them the respect they deserve andconsult with them prior to any decision making.


10

Page 991

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response192 Samantha Rainford 193 Object I am a Sutton housing partnership tenant and the thought of a traveller's site near my home is something I am 110% against happening!

I would not feel safe living near a traveller's site.

Against! Against! Against!


196 Yvonne Mason 197 Object I would like to raise objections to the proposed travellers site on Kimpton Park Way1. Local schools are already oversubscribed and this site will put even more pressure on school places in the borough.2. Pressure this will place on local hospital / GP services which are already at breaking point.3. Pressure placed on emergency services with a proposed extra 194 permanent hard standing pitches in this area, services that have not been protected from government cuts. How do you propose to police the area?4. Extra traffic and congestion, in an already gridlocked part of Sutton, which will cause more pollution and even poorer air quality for this area. This environmental pollution will also have an impact on the health of the local population causing more pressure to local health / GPservices5. Pressure on waste disposal services which have already seen cuts as part of your austerity measures.


197 Mr & Mrs Hinton 198 Object We would like to formally object to proposals for a travellers site to be located on land north of Kimpton Park Way (plot S87).

Our objections are based on the following:

1. Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local populous. If this proposal goes ahead more of our children will suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired choice of school and siblings may be split up resulting in parents having tocover schools runs to different schools;

2. Doctor's surgery waiting times are already far too long and if this site is approved it would only make matters worse;

3. Local hospitals are even more stretched than doctors surgeries;

4. Our emergency services are already overstretched and will struggle to cope with this influx of people.

As such, we do not feel that the site would be sustainable, which would therefore place it in breach of the 2008 good practice guidelines for such a proposed use of the land.

In addition, members of the gypsy and traveller community more recently favour the use of a mobile home in place of a traditional caravan some of which can be 25 metres in length. Locating a traveller site with such vehicles where there is already a high volume of visiting trafficto Tesco, the recycling centre the business park and at the junction of the very busy A217 would surely only cause further traffic problems to the local community.

Kimpton Park way site is a large expanse of local land that would be better used to address the existing issues listed above, rather than exacerbating them.. We need more schools; perhaps the site could be used to accommodate one?

We urge you to reconsider plans to develop this site in the proposed manner.


199 Christine Bunn 200 Object It is with horror my husband and i learned about the proposed site in Kimpton Road area being set up for travellers. How can this be possible when there are not enough school places available for the children who already live in the area. We have a four year old granddaughterand are very concerned about her schooling. What's more, the value of our houses will drop and consider a site for these travellers would be better placed where there is social housing and not privately owned houses. House prices then would not be affected. It would seem tome that decisions have already been made without consultation with the people most closely affected. Could this Kimpton road site be used for a communal park with children's play area and a cafe which would be well used by the people working at the industrial area. Pleasere-consider. Thank you.


202 Candida Cox 203 Object I am writing to express my objection to the proposed permanent traveller site at Kimpton. There are many reasons I feel this is an entirely inappropriate site, the main reason is the overpopulation of the area and the knock on effects of this. Westbourne primary school across theroad from the proposed traveller site has the smallest catchment area of all Sutton primary schools. This is due to the density and type of housing in the area and clear evidence of how crowded the area already is. The school is being forced to accept the second bulge class intwo years due to population growth. Two nearby sites have residential housing being built as I write, the old Burger King site and the new Sainsbury's site, which will increase population further. Whilst I realise population growth can be a good thing, it can also go too far anddamage the area. I feel we are already beyond the positives of this phenomena, local facilities are really struggling and the area is just full to bursting.

My property is within 100 meters of the proposed site. Regardless of the truth and of fairness when it comes to travelling communities there is a reputation that precedes such communities, and it is without doubt that a traveller site so near will reduce the price and saleability ofmy hard earned property. Over the past week I have spoken to several estate agents who without hesitation said it would affect house prices nearby negatively. Obviously I am very unhappy about this reality.

I could name a dozen further objections but I feel the above two reasons are enough to register my utter dismay and fear over the Kimpton proposals.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider and find a less densely populated, more spacious site.


203 Assumption D'Silva 204 Object I was not aware of any meeting to discuss the proposed plan for travellers site. I am a residents of Sutton and have received no notification in writing or advertised on such matters.

I am writing in connection to this that I am against this proposal.


205 Jeannette Power 206 Object I am objecting to the proposed permanent gypsy camp on Kimpton Industrial estate.

My 1st objection is the impact on the school places for local children. 194 pitches will result in numerous children needing school places in the area meaning overcrowding in our already oversubscribed schools.

My 2nd objection is because of the amount of people suddenly wanting to use the local doctors and dentists meaning waiting times will increase for all.

This site could be better used to build a new school or community centre. Our area is already crowded and to suddenly have another potential 1000+ people descend on us is very unfair.


206 Lyn and Brian Harris 207 Object I strongly disagree to the proposed travellers site. Reasons are that it is already a very built up area. The traffic is bad down Reigate Avenue and Sutton common road and it would be dangerous for children wandering out of the travellers site. The schools and doctors surgeriesare already stretched and I just think it will cause a lot of problems for residents and sutton council. We have had a lot of new buildings already gone up over the years. Wicks and the Storage building and I think it is unfair putting more traffic and people in a small area. Also it willbe near Sutton Cemetery and it should be a nice and peaceful place where you can visit and place flowers on your departed loved ones graves.


207 Andrew Bullock 208 Object I am writing this letter after receiving a leaflet through my door yesterday afternoon which is the first I have heard of this proposed development.

I wish to strongly OBJECT this proposal as in my opinion this will affect local property prices, cause extra congestion, noise and litter in the area.

We are fine as we are in Sutton.

Please register my concerns and take them into account when you make a final decision.


208 Margaret Harkin 209 Object I am writing this letter after receiving a leaflet through my door yesterday afternoon which is the first I have heard of this proposed development.

I wish to strongly OBJECT this proposal as in my opinion this will affect local property prices, cause extra congestion, noise and litter in the area.

We are fine as we are in Sutton.

Please register my concerns and take them into account when you make a final decision.


209 Maria Drewer-McIlwrick

210 Object I am sending this email to register my disagreement with the proposed travellers site which would be located behind Sutton Cemetery, I am very disheartened to learn that this proposal has been put forward by Sutton council. I have very closeFamily which includes My Son, my Mother and Father and my brother residing in Sutton Cemetery, the Cemetery was chosen because of the peacefulness and tranquility of the site and I fear that a travellers site situated just behind the Cemetery will change all that and have adetrimental effect on the locality. At present it is the most peaceful and respectful site and it is cared for extremely well, it's clean and tidy all around the area and it's maintained to the highest degree could you guarantee that this would continue? Perhaps not. The proposedentrance to this site would undoubtedly encumber funerals taking place within the Cemetery and parking on occasions such as Christmas and Easter would be at a premium, you have to bear in mind that people who visit the Cemetery may have elderly relatives with themmaking parking outside the Cemetery gates a must, carrying gardening tools and plants etc to and from the Cemetery is hard enough at weekends, being able to park outside, with the proposed entrance next to the Cemetry gates would be mostly impossible, could you guaranteethat the cemetery's gates wouldn't get blocked by travellers vehicles? Is it really such a good site bearing in mind the level of traffic that runs along the A217 at all times, could you also guarantee that no damage would occur to the area? I'm sure that I'm not alone in requestingthat you re-think this proposed site I'm really disappointed with Sutton Council especially as Merton is so close and as a resident of Merton/Sutton borders we were not taken into consideration or told about any meeting about this proposed site! My objection is that Sutton councilis"The so called greener borough" and even contemplating a travellers site in such a location really unfair to us and our loved ones final resting place! The area has suffered a lot of extra traffic with the building of all the storageUnits and the demolition of the site on the A217 we really don't need any extra heavy traffic in this locality. Will the travellers pay council tax? and will the area continue to thrive!? Will house prices drop as a result? Will crime increase? Will businesses prosper? Will fly tippingincrease? Will there be extra police available? The proposed location is also extremely close to the Local high school (Glenthorne high school) could you guarantee that there would not be any travellers cruising along Sutton common road when the children come out of school?All these questions need to be thought about and answered.

Thank You for really listening to the local community and really taking our concerns as real concerns.


210 T Suriyakumaran 211 Object We are strongly opposing the above mentioned proposal. This will create severe damage to the local community and environment. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

212 Catherine Prince 213 Object I am writing to strongly object to the proposal of a traveller's site near Kimpton Park Way.I am shocked that the first I and all my neighbours heard about it was when someone from Wallington posted the proposal on Facebook.I live very near this site and am quite appalled that we have had no information from the planning department about this; no letter or info at all. Apparently there was a meeting held at Sutton Life Centre but I had no idea as this was not advertised at all.I strongly object because Sutton is already an overcrowded borough; I struggle to get my children into local schools and as for a GP appointment it is almost impossible. How will the infrastructure cope with an influx of people in the area?I also find it very disrespectful to consider building anything so close to a cemetery which should be a quiet area of reflection for families who have lost their loved ones.The A217 is already one of the most congested roads in London. By housing yet more people this road will be one permanent traffic jam.I hope that you will reconsider this proposal as the whole community here near the Kimpton estate do not want this site built.


213 Barry Lilley 214 Object This proposal for the travellers site is completely inappropriate, to be next to the local cemetery, the noise and invasion of privacy for those visiting the cemetery to grieve will be unacceptable. The consequences for the local community and the already over stretched services willbe unbearable. Historical these sites bring with them a whole new set of problems that will affect the lives and security of local residents and businesses. The value of the property close to the site will drop as people will not want to move to the area.I feel there should be another meeting regarding this proposal scheduled as soon as possible and this time advertised properly so we all know where and when it is.Regards from a very concerned resident


11

Page 992

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response214 Julia Loftus 215 Object I would like to add my concern about the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park, Sutton.

I don't know where to start or which part I need to draw your attention to first.I have lived in Sutton, happily,for the last 30 years and have found myself in the recent years defending the local area through all the bad times, before the local area finally being worked on to be bought back up into some standard for local residents and businesses, to build onagain.As we are pulling one part of the Borough up to a standard to compete with surrounding Boroughs like Kingston and Croydon and Wimbledon, for shoppers to come into and spend....we seem to bring down the side for residents and the future residents of the borough and out oftown businesses, to now propose a Traveller site in a high residential, new and old business, local amenities area, which will put so much pressure on the surrounding area, including schools and their places. Luckily my Son is now 25, but I had to fight to get him into both hisschools, by having to go to Appeal all those years ago...and I don't suppose it's any easier or better now, only to get worse if we have to school all the traveller children too.Some of the business that have only just moved onto the Kimpton Ind Est. probably wouldn't have moved there if they knew what was being planned for the land around them, do we really want to lose them from the area.???

I also feel if we are included into the Tram extension plan, it's not the best advert for our revitalised borough to be known for, as this will have a knock on effect for us all.

Please think again about your proposal for a Traveller site to this area of Sutton, it will achieve no benefits for anyone in the local area, residents, businesses, traffic control, schools, taxpayers and the general calmness of local day to day goings on, which I guess will impact onthe local police as well.


215 Steve McDonald 216 Object I'm not sure if this the correct email so please do you let me know who I should contact if it isn't yourself.

I just want to raise a concern about the Permanent Traveller site in that I hear there was a public meeting, and I didn't receive any notice, neither did any of my neighbours. I was notified about the plans via a petition set up online so it was quite a surprise.https://www.change.org/p/sutton-borough-council-stop-the-kimpton-travellers-site?recruiter=166464949&utm_campaign=signature_receipt_twitter_dialog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

I have questions on schooling plans, the cemetery itself and policing as where I live, Cheam Park Farm, has already been a target for burglaries of late.

Will there be any further public meetings to discuss concerns with the community or are there still any open channels on this, or is this now 100% set in stone?


216 Lynda Waterman andBrian Harris

217 Object Regarding the proposed travellers site. The area won't be able to cope with more people. The Schools, Doctor surgeries are stretched. My daughter is a teacher in the local school and it is oversubscribed as it is. The traffic and parking is bad around the area we don't needmore people moving in. It will cause a lot of problems. We strongly object to the idea.


217 Linda Harding 218 Object I strongly object to the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way.I am concerned the crime rate in the area will rise also the rubbish they leave around The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

218 Rob Cole 219 Object I feel very strongly about the proposal for Plot 87 and extremely worried about how this will affect my family and our environment if it were to go ahead.Local businesses on the Kimpton Estate will lose confidence and move elsewhere which will make people lose their jobs.It willalso put off any new companies using it.Sutton is very short of space and with all the new housing developments we will need a lot of extra facilities to accommodate the huge increase of new residents like Nurseries, Schools, Doctor Surgeries etc. Surely this land could be put tobetter use and the main considerations for this land should be for the cemetery, the people visiting it and for future for burial plots. It should also be an option for other cemeteries that are short of space and anything that will help the SUTTON 2031 plan move forward and benefitfrom it as I have mentioned above.


219 Fidelma Evans 220 Object Can't believe that you are considering a "Travellers Site" when people are already finding it impossible to register with GP' s , find places for their children at local sutton schools and increase in service use at our already over stretched local hospital.Surely the site could be utilised more efficientlyThis is an objection to your plans!!!!!!


12

Page 993

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response220 Janice Blake 221 Object As a concerned resident I have some questions that I would be grateful if you could answer.

I came to the secret meeting (allegedly leafleted to all residents) at the life centre in March and found that you did yourselves no favours. Questions were given from residents and no answers came back from you the planning departmentI have found a website document which I am sure you must be fully aware of Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperityIt goes through everything that should be considered and thought about when building a new site of which has presented me with questions for you...In section 1.10 It sets out a government framework to promote good relations with the already settled community.Do you in any way feel that you have achieved this? As per the current petition online, residents are in fact up in arms as to how this whole situation has been handled. They feel that you have not in anyway been transparent in your ideas for the Sutton cemetery site and quitefrankly have been back handed and sly.Section 1.11 In addressing this challenge it is important to ensure that these sites:• Are sustainable, safe and easy to manage and maintain• Are of a decent standard, equitable to that which would be expected for social housing in the settled community• Support harmonious relations between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community.This site has never previously been considered for normal social housing before....You told us that no new pitches had been built in Sutton since 1971 so it is time for more...Can you tell me how many council houses, owned by the council, you have built since then.. because surely if we are going to spend all this money on an ethnic minority then surely a council tax paying majority should be reaping more of the benefits.... and I don't meanaffordable housing I mean council housing not the same thing... Since 1971 has the amount of council owned properties increased or decreased, the right to buy scheme that came into being in the 1980s will surely have reduced the amount of council owned properties. What isbeing done to rectify this reduction.The council website also states that metropolitan open land should never be considered for building on unless there are absolutely no other options available. You told us yourselves that you had started off with a selection of 30 sites to consider......Unfortunately for us on theevening you couldn't tell where these sites were and you also couldn't tell us why there were rejected.......again very transparent

1.14 The guidance is primarily intended to cover social site provision for Gypsies and IrishTravellers and covers a range of sites including:• Permanent sites – providing residents with a permanent home. The bidding guidance for Communities and Local Government’s Gypsy and Traveller Site Grant explains that for permanent sites ownership should remain with the local authority or registered social landlord andcontinue in use as a Gypsy and Traveller site for at least ten years, although consideration will be given to sites of a shorter term nature where there is a sound business case that demonstrates value for money.

What value for money are we going to get.....are all the costs going to be recouped??? All we were told about were the benefits for the Travellers but what of the Council Tax paying residents of Sutton..... NothingWhat will we gain from having this site ... absolutely nothing ...except a massive great bill , a lot of upset and bad feeling... Something we would gain is a hike in house and car insurance premiums......something that we are not allowed to voice for politically correct reasons butsomething that insurance companies would happily jump on in raising our premiums because they class us as living in a higher risk area ( I wonder what that could be)

Small businesses leaving the Kimpton Estate because of the effect it would have on them...Would jobs be lost if they relocated to a different borough???

3.5 It should also provide visual and acoustic privacy, and have characteristics which are sympathetic to the local environment. When selecting locations for permanent sites, consideration needs to be given to the relatively high density of children likely to be on the site.

The site is on a raised area....what are we going to have unsightly 8ft walls.....vegetation would need to be thick and tall...

3.8 Consideration must be given to the relationship of sites to the surrounding community. For this purpose it is important to ensure that proposals to develop a site link in with other broader strategies in place for improving community cohesion and be regarded as a key issuewithin them.3.9 The site must be sustainable, offering scope to manage an integrated coexistence with the local community. This will include consideration of noise and possible disturbance to Gypsy and Travellers living on the site, and possible noise and disturbance to the widercommunity, in particular from movement of Gypsy and Traveller vehicles.3.11 Similarly, where joint commercial/residential use is envisaged for a site (as in the case of showpeople sites because of the need for residents to store and maintain fairground equipment), it is important that the compatibility of both of these uses with the surrounding landuses is given careful consideration.

What sort of travellers are going to live on this site...ones with large fairground machinery???

3.18 When considering sites adjacent to main roads, flyovers and railway lines, careful regard must be given to:• The health and safety of children and others who will live on the site; and• The greater noise transference through the walls of trailers and caravans than through the walls of conventional housing, and the need for design measures (for instance noise barriers) to abate the impact on quality of life and health.

Right next to the A217 and the entrance to the Kimpton Industrial Estate where large lorries access the site.

3.19 The proposed site must be relatively flat and suitable for purpose. Sites should not be developed on exposed sloping sites where there is risk of caravans being overturned or where there is a high probability of flooding risk.

This site is definitely not flat and quite boggy... it would require a lot of expensive work

3.20 Where there is a risk from flooding the degree of risk must be determined prior to considering allocation or development of a site by reference to Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25), the Environment Agency’s Flood Map and the localplanning authority’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Health and Safety4.20 When designing the layout of a site, careful consideration must be given to the health and safety of residents, and in particular children, given the likelihood of a high density of children on the site and relatively high levels of vehicle ownership amongst some groups ofGypsies and Travellers for towing caravans and employment purposes.Lots of noisy vehicles and car fumes

4.21 It is important to ensure that appropriate traffic calming measures are considered for all sites. Care should be taken when introducing speed humps and other measures, particularly to existing sites, to ensure that appropriate drainage is accommodated within the scheme toallow for the effective passage of surplus water.

Are they going to be racing

4.22 Clear and effective signage should be introduced where a speed restriction or other traffic calming measure is to apply. Similarly, clear directions should be in place to indicate the location of hydrants and other access points for the fire service etcwhen attending an emergency on site.4.23 The need for separate vehicular/pedestrian access should be considered.How many entrances is it going to need

4.51 This also applies to the inclusion of space for keeping animals. Where there is demand for space for animals and where the site provider is satisfied that it maybe reasonable and practicable to include this, a grazing area for horses and ponies could be provided, to reflect the cultural use of the horse as a traditional means of transport.4.52 However grazing may be problematic and an adequate supply of grass difficult to sustain through over use when demand is high. Site managers may also enquire whether owners of land on the periphery of the site have surplus land for this purpose that could be provided ata reasonable rent.

They is no grazing in or near the cemetery..

Can you tell me of what value placing this site right next to a cemetery would be?Why would you consider this site when it has never ever been considered before for normal social housing?What value would this site be to the newly regenerated Kimpton Industrial Estate ?What of the businesses on the siteWhat effect would bringing more people into the borough have on local resources such as hospitals, schools, doctors etc..... If you are going to find a fund from somewhere to build this site can you please tell me why is there never any money there to pour into our local hospitals,groups etc... Things are always being cut but out of the blue we are going to find the funds for a travellers site......What effect is there going to be on local traffic.... this is already a very busy intersection...I think you are being very short sighted if you think what is only after all 9 pitches is worth upsetting thousands of local residents....

If the sites in Woodmansterne are doing and operating so well why don't you just legally extend the existing site....


221 Gary Belton 222 Object I am writing this email to you on behalf of myself, mother and father concerning the S87 plot for a travellers site on the Kimpton Estate.

I attended your meeting at the sutton life centre concerning the developments in sutton, may I first point out hardly any of the local residents knew about this, I myself only found out from one of my neighbours at 8 o'clock and the meeting started at 7, you stated that postcardswere posted through doors but speaking to people and friends in quite a few different streets around the area this was not the case, please would you explain why ?

With regards to this site being built myself and my parents that reside at the back of sutton common cemetery strongly object to this being situated there for the following reasons:-

1) Where you plan to build this site is right next door to the cemetery which I think as well as a lot of people is disrespectful not only for the people lying in rest but to their family and friends that go to there graves, also for future burials there.

2) The local business on the kimpton estate are not happy about this proposed site as fear of break ins/criminal damages and disruption to their business, some have even started to discuss the option of moving from this area if this goes ahead, so that will be loss of jobs for afew people. The kimpton Estate has turned into a thriving business area and sutton council want to destroy this.

3) Our schools in this area are already bursting at the seams and would not be able to cope with the influx of aload more students, it's bad enough local parents cant get there kids into them and have to go further afield.

4) The traffic on the A217/sutton common road and the kimpton is bad enough let alone have more entrances and exit coming from this site.

5) It is a well known fact and been confirmed to me by people that have had these sites built by them, that the crime rate increases, litter and waste being everywhere which would filter into the cemetery, may which I must add is kept maintained to the highest level.

6) Sutton council have already made cuts to local services and we now have to pay for a wheel bin for the garden rubbish, so what increases will you make to recoup your losses.

7) my parents have been informed that the council tax has increased and sutton propose that this site will cost at least £1 million pounds to build that you have not got to spend on this site as per an article in the the local guardian written by CLLR Jayne Mccoy, this article as aresident tilted no need for concern over site I found to be quite offernsivand do wonder what sutton council are playing at, by how it's written it comes across as shut and put up with it, sorry but this will not be the case.

8) I have also written to Paul Scully concerning this proposed site and had a reply from his office stating that this is not a measure that he can support and has sent a letter to the secretary of state the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP asking him to clarify the legal requirements to makeprovisions for the permanent traveller sites and to relieve sutton from having to make this provision given the shortage of housing, schools and health services in sutton, They have attached a copy of that letter for me and will be quite willing to forward this to you if you require.

9) I have also signed the petition on change.org and shared this with people on social media to gain support to stop this disrecptable site going ahead.

I will stress again that myself and my parents are strongly against this site being on the Kimpton Estate and next to Sutton Common grave yard, this is a place for peace and tranquility,so I urge Sutton Council to show respect to the people that have been laid to rest includingtheir families and to sutton residents.

I fully understand that these people have a right to live somewhere but your choice of area is very wrong and as I said before disrespectful.

I hopefully await a reply from you and that you take into consideration the residents concerns and complaints regarding this site and overturn your decision and say no to it.


13

Page 994

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response222 Alison Raine 223 Object I am writing to express my objection to a permanent site for travellers at a local site.

I have recently had cause to use St Helier hospital A and E for my ageing mother and I was very concerned at the huge number of people waiting each time I was there. Added to this, when we were admitted by ambulance we had to wait in a corridor for 1 and a half hours asthere were insufficient cubicles for us. I feel that an influx of up to 1000 people could put a strain on an already stretched facility.

We have recently also heard about the strain on local schools. Having a large number of 'ready made' families in this particular area could also add to the difficulties schools are already experiencing.I know that the Traveller Services for schools in many boroughs have been cut. This invaluable service used to support traveller children in local schools and the results of the cuts led to more children not attending school, school attendance figures being adversely affected andeducational standards for the traveller children being compromised.

I feel that a more suitable purpose built site should be sought with access to facilities that can cope with a new community such as this. Possibly a site where there are primary and secondary school places available and doctors surgeries and hospitals with greater capacity.


224 Mark Bishop 225 Object I would like to object to this proposal I feel the council has just invested in the trading estate to help build up the future of Sutton and also to the other side have developed the life centre for all local residents at great expenseAs a local resident I found it very hard for my children to get into local schools and that placing this site here will just make the task of schooling all the children within the area will not be able to be meetThis list could go on and on with reference to st helier hospital , doctors and other local council services unable to copeAgain I would like to say that Sutton council has worked very hard and achieved a very high standard on the industrial estate to enhance the area and I feel that this will of been of no use if you place this travellers site at this location as I feel not only will local residents be upsetbut also lots of the companies and possible future companies may move away due to the location of this new planned site


225 Julie Meeham 226 Object I live very close to this “proposed” travellers site at Kimpton Park Way, neither I nor any of my neighbours were notified of the public meeting which took place last week.

Not only would this site take what little green area away from our families, it will also have a knock on effect on the whole surrounding area, trade, cemetery users, not to mention the noise and hygiene pollution and a possible increase in crime in what is a safer neighbourhood.

A question for Sutton Council - Where exactly is the proposed £1 million coming from to build this site when funds for our schools, the NHS & disabled people are having to endure cutbacks which are completely unfair?

I suggest a further, fully publicised public meeting would now seem a necessity.

I await your response.


226 Mrs Tanya White 227 Object I strongly OPPOSE your proposal.

As a resident of Barrington Road, Sutton, backing onto Sutton Cemetery, I will be one of the closest residents to the new site. This is a very worrying prospect for my family and I. It is already causing sleepless nights with worry of our future here.

Both myself and my Husband have worked hard to purchase our own property. We work hard to meet our bills each month, but do it as we love our house and the road in which we live in. Within one week, our lives have been turned upside down with the prospect of thistravellers site being placed almost behind our back wall! If this site goes ahead, our future will no longer be here as I will not want to live within 500 yards of this site. BUT who will want to purchase my property once the site is built? Possibly no-one!

In 2015, we had our property valued. Can you guarantee that house prices in our road/area will not decrease due to this proposed site and if they do, will you be happy to meet the difference?

As I stand in my garden, I wonder if the faint sound of the A217 and the birds singing will be the sound of the future? With the proposed 194 permanent hard standing pitches and the likelihood of an influx of a 1000 people and their animals, I very much doubt it. How will the noisenuisance be dealt with? Will there be rules and regulations to be made to these travellers? Or will it be us, the taxpayer who has to suffer?

As mentioned previously, my garden backs onto the cemetery; who will monitor the cemetery of children playing or animals fouling on graves? What waste management will be put in place?

With a four year old son, about to start reception, will he be guaranteed a place in a school of our preference or will the Travellers get given prime places?

To re-iterate, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL and feel that the land be used for cemetery purposes, children’s play area or youth centre.


227 Campbell MacDiarmid 228 Object Please record my objection to the plans

Reasons

Concern that local retail will be affected as People may not want to pass the site or be affected by increased traffic.

Concern the site will have an impact on funeral services and visits to the cemetery.


228 S Pullen, L S Pullen,B Pullen. D Edwell

229 Object We object to this proposed travellers site. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

230 Keira O'Brien 231 Support There have been posters/flyers put around and also photos on social media which are biased. Claiming that the proposed travellers site it a disgrace. In my view everyone deserves somewhere to live. It is the traditional way of a traveller to live. Would you refuse a Muslim fromwearing a burka? Would you tell a Sikh man to take of his turban? Would you tell a Jewish family they are not allowed to circumcise their child? Yes these three points relate to religion but in the holy books of each of these religions it does not state these item of clothing orcleansing methods are a must it is just their communities traditional way to live. It's disgraceful that you are even asking for people to say if they are for or against this. When the council offer someone a property do they have to consult the rest of the people in the borough toconfirm that this person can have this property. All this tension isn't fair for the traveller community. If you have a plot of land that is safe and stable and that they can make their own like anyone would with their home then give it to them as you would give someone the keys totheir property. I hope you make the right decision I am clearly for you doing so


233 Isabel Felzines 234 Object Herewith I would like to express my strongest opposition to the intention to built a permanent site for travellers on plot 87. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

234 Gary Belton 235 Object I forgot to add to my previous e-mail, Please would sutton council consider a doctor's surgery with walk in facility instead of this travellers site, this would be more use to community and would be welcomed by local residents, plus take some of the strain of the local surgeries andSt Helier hospital.


236 Diane Parsons 237 Object I am writing I response to a planning application that has been made regarding a travellers siteProposed on the Kimpton estate.I object profusely to this idea as the impact it would have on residents.Our schools are already over loaded with pupils up to 35 in a classroom is already unacceptable.Also why should these travellers be given land that they do not pay rent for let alone council taxThey are given it freeI have had to work my entire adult life to get to where I am.Your money would be better spent by having a place that children can attend like a social club as kids have nowhere to go but street corners .I won't my objection to be made known


237 Diane Parsons 238 Object I'd like it noted that I object profusely to this proposal.I've live in Sutton for over 21 years and have paid my way accordingly.Setting aside land for travellers that pay no council tax or rent is an insult to me and has quite frankly annoyed me.I again want to make myself clear I am objecting to this proposal in Kimpton park way .


239 Derry Hynes 240 Object We did not receive any information regarding the proposed traveller's site, we object strongly to this site so close to the cemetery we have several friends buried there it is unthinkable the affect the site would have on burial services and bereaved people visiting their loved one'sgrave. Sutton cemetery is such a peaceful place and should remain so the dead deserve to Rest In Peace.


240 Barry McCarthy 241 Object I would like to register a strong and very emotional objection to the proposed travellers site at the location adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park. The cemetery is the final resting place for both of my parents and I find great solace from the tranquillity and calmfound in the pleasant grounds. To site 194 permanent pitches in close proximity would be a violation of the sanctity of the cemetery. I plead with you not to betray the local residents and families that also have loved ones interred in this quiet and holy place.

There are, of course the other concerns regarding how local services would cope with the disruption of over 1,000 people being sited in such a cramped area. The potential mess and disturbance is a frightful thought. How will local schools cope and how will the output of wastebe contained and dealt with so as to avoid serious health issues.


243 Wendy Nielsen 244 Object I would like to know why a travellers site is being planned in Sutton when we already have a shortage of schools and GPs. Also please can you advise what he cost us to the taxpayer for development and how this will be recouped in rent at the traveller site? How do the councilplan to manage the tideless/cleanliness of the proposed site?


246 Nicola Mepham 247 ObjectOBJECTION

Kimpton Travellers Site

Ref: s87

It is with great dismay that I have learnt of Sutton Council's intention to locate a Traveller's Site at Kimpton Park Way.

There can't be a worse site for such a proposal; near schools, a cemetery, a thriving retail park, a busy 'A' road, the constant queue of traffic to the recycling centre, not to mention the houses of hard working, law abiding Sutton residents.

Invest some money into something positive for this borough, instead of trying to drag it down. We've put up with enough, now give Sutton folk a reason to vote for you in the next election!


247 Kate Seal 248 Object I have only just heard about the proposed Traveller’s site behind Sutton Cemetery. Plot S87

Firstly I must point out that I was not written to as claimed by the Borough.I am strongly against this proposal.

Our schools are already struggling to cope with numbers and have not enough places for children already living in the borough.

Our Doctors are over loaded and it is hard to get an appointment. The local hospitals are under pressure.

I have a husband whom is not expected to live very long, do I want a Travellers site by the cemetery? NO


14

Page 995

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response249 Mrs P A Marlborough 250 Object I am firmly against this proposed travellers site as it will affect, not only the cemetery and retail parks, but there will be excess traffic to and from the site. There is also the question of rubbish; not a priority with travellers. And who is going to pay for the 194 areas of hard standing

and will they be made to pay council tax or contribute financially? Of course not. This all pie in the sky!The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

251 Helene Turner 252 Object not next to the cemetery, surely this should be a place of quietness and peace. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

253 Alice Provenzano 254 Object I would like to express my strong objection to the proposal of a Travellers site is adjacent to Sutton cemetery.

I do not feel next to cemetery is an appropriate place. I am very concerned about the impact on local schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals, public services and waste disposal. I understand this could result in an influx of up to 1000 people. This is far more than the area can copewith.

Please accept this email as a formal objection to the planning proposal


257 Johanna Cotter 258 Object It has been brought to my attention that there is a proposed travellers site located near the Kimpton Linear Park - Sutton Cemetery.

Please see my objections for the proposal.

What is proposed is 194 permanent hard standing pitches, which could result in an influx of up to 1000 plus people, where local resources are already greatly stretched.

How will this affect our community?Schools- Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local populous, even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice or locality.Doctors Surgeries- Waiting times for appointments are far too long as it stands, these will increase.Hospitals- Even worse than our Doctors Surgeries, this is a service already at breaking point.999 Services- Our Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade services are overstretched already, an influx of up to 1000 people is going to create major problems with these services.Waste Disposal- Cuts have already been made with these services, are more coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.Traffic congestion - increase in Emissions. That stretch of the A217 is bad enough without another road going in.Funeral services will be affected as this will affect access to the cemetery. Nevermind how disrespectful to the dead with noise on the land promised for more plots.

I cannot see what asset a travellers site would bring to the community, if any proposal was to go ahead, it should be for starter homes and affordable housing for the youngsters who were brought up in the community and are having to rent or move due to the lack of affordablehousing.

I bought my property in a "nice" area and not to see my property's price decrease because of a travellers site less than 0.4miles away!!


258 John Hunt 259 Object Having first hand experience of travellers and have many objection to this site so please do not allow it to go ahead The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

260 Ali Ganiji 261 Object I object to this rash proposal. It will affect the quality of life of the community and businesses will suffer. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

261 B V & L A R Cole 262 Object With reference to the proposed travellers site located on land north of Kimpton Park Way, we wish to strongly object for the following reasons:

1 it is disrespectful having this site adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and we understand that access to the site could be via Sutton Cemetery!

2 resources are already stretched:

2a ie schools oversubscribed,

2b waiting times for a doctor's appointment are far too long,

2c hospitals are at breaking point,

2d emergency services are overstretched now.

3 it would be located adjacent to a very busy dangerous noisy road, ie A217 and therefore be unsuitable especially for children.

We feel that the site would be better used for the purpose for which it was meant, ie burying the dead and although at present it may appear that there is a lot of space, people will not stop dying thus needing a burial place.


262 Mr. & Mrs Din andFamily

263 Object We at 75 Ridge Road are strictly against to built a Traveller site. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

263 David Adams 264 Object I was recently concerned to learn of the proposal within your local plan for site 87 to be designated a travellers' site. I am concerned for a number of reasons.

Whether or not justified there is a certain stigma attached to the traveller community. Site 87 is in close proximity to my property which I am currently marketing for sale. I believe that if your plans get the go ahead this will have a severely detrimental impact to the value ofproperty prices in this area of the town.

I would like to understand the process you have been through in narrowing your search for the most appropriate site down to two from around 300. Could you please provide me with this options appraisal or at least the criteria against which each site was assessed?

I note that site 87 is adjacent to a cemetery. I would have thought there are more suitable designations for this site over and above donating it to the traveller community. With a significant settlement of people there is bound to be noise and disruption which will have a negativeimpact on people's quiet contemplation and mourning.

The local community have grave concerns about this proposal. This potential allocation is likely to have significant financial impacts on a number of residents.

I would be grateful, as requested above, for further information on the assessment process and also the process of appealing these proposals.


265 Steve Barnes 266 Object I live within 200 yards of this plot and received no letter outlining the proposed plan from you. None of my immediate neighbours have either.

So much for you consulting the locals.

You would not allow houses to be built here so why traveler 'mobile homes' or park homes. The traffic will increase as the occupiers will run no doubt run their businesses from here with large trucks and vans at all hours.Will Brookfield school be expected to take more pupils? It's busting at the seems now. As is Glenthorne despite its building works.The local businesses will be affected as people will not want to pass or park near the site and obviously the cemetery services and visitors will be affected.

Why can the current site in Carshalton not be expanded ? It's surrounded by land but no doubt you have it down as green belt, but it is already on the same land.

This will not be tolerated by the local population and we will fight it all the way.


266 Jayne Cawley 267 Object I OBJECT to the proposed new travellers site in sutton at the Kimpton site.As a sutton resident I find this outrageous.PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS!!


268 Mr & Mrs M Hersey 269 Object We object to this proposal. Please log our objection. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

271 Mick Peachey 272 Object Re- proposed travellers site at Kimpton park way. I am totally against this proposal as I think it will cause severe problems to the area, such as Tesco shoppers, Glenthorne school and the life skill centre . Not to mention the prospect of values of local house prices falling. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

274 Mr and Mrs Schifano 275 Object I am writing to inform you that myself and my husband are completely against there being a travellers site along the kimpton park way,we live nearby and don't wish these people to live in our area,we also walk our dogs along that path. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

275 Ms D Archer 276 Object I would like to object to the above proposal.I cannot understand why this site would be put so near to houses and a school. The noise 24 hours of the day would make it unbearable. The rubbish and yes i do fear for my safety at all hours and kimpton park cycle path and area will become a no go for all apart from thetravellers.


276 Matt Wilson 277 Object Please note I object to the proposed travellers site at Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

278 Helen Michael 279 Object I am writing to object to the proposed planning for the Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way (S87)

I am deeply disgusted how you can propose a travellers site within the park and within the burial grounds.

This will ruin our community as well destroying the area. This is not an area to position a travellers site !!!!This is truly disgusting how such planning could actually be considered.


15

Page 996

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response281 Lisa Mash 282 Object I am writing to object to the proposed travellers site planned to be located on land north of Kimpton Park Way.

My concerns are:

Schools- we are already struggling to get our children into local schools. These are already massively oversubscribed.

Doctors- Appointments are difficult to get now. This will only increase.

Hospital- Our local hospital is under massive pressures NOW. Again this will get worse.

Cemetery- This site is located adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and I feel this would be very disrespectful.

Emergency services - Will be overstretched

I hope mine and many other residents concerns are taking seriously.


283 Karen Barnard(Residents of 17,Whittaker Road,Sutton)

284 Object In respect of proposed travellers site North of Kimpton Park Way we want to register my objection to this. My objections are as follows.

More traffic congestion in an already busy area.

Local schools are already overcrowded and difficult to obtain places by local residents.

Local hospitals and GP's are already struggling to cope and waiting times are increasing.

Budget cuts in waste disposal and more to come have an adverse affect on this service.

An influx of up to 1000 people will add more pressure to Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade services already overstretched.


284 Kola Agoro 285 Object I am writing to object to proposal S87 which is to build Travelers site next to Sutton cemetery.I am really disappointed that our trusted elected councilors should put forward this type of proposal. We strongly object, please don't do it.


285 Laura Smythe 286 Object I would like to formally raise my objections to the proposal to locate a travellers site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way.

As a local resident of the area it is already apparently clear how stretched local resources are not to mention the congestion on local roads. It has been widely publicised that the A217 is the most congested road in the UK for a second year running, costing drivers an average 110hours a year. The proposal to add a further 194 pitches will only exacerbate this problem.

We sincerely hope you reconsider this proposal for the sake of the community.


286 Laurence Unwin 287 Support withconditions

In response to the news received via a leaflet put through our letterbox in reference to Traveller's site Plot S87.For me the main issue is whether the people using this site will be governed by the same laws as you or I.I have first hand experience of a traveller's site and there was a considerable amount of fly tipping, disposal of refuge, use of land to urinate and defecate, all acts which are against the law.

I have no issue ,in principle with land being provided, however I would expect all these matters to be dealt with in the appropriate way.I would also like to be reassured that this site will have no effect on the surrounding retailers and residents adjacent to the site.No negative effect can be seen as acceptable, we all have the right to live in decent conditions, but under the laws of our land.

So long as all these criteria are met and the local residents are reassured that there will be no change in the condition of the surrounding area and that any unlawful behaviour will be dealt with then it would be possible to use this site for the purpose of a traveller's site.


287 Mathew Quilliam 288 Object I would like to formally raise my objections to the proposal to locate a travellers site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way.

As a local resident of the area it is already apparently clear how stretched local resources are not to mention the congestion on local roads. It has been widely publicised that the A217 is the most congested road in the UK for a second year running, costing drivers an average 110hours a year. The proposal to add a further 194 pitches will only exacerbate this problem.

We sincerely hope you reconsider this proposal for the sake of the community.


289 Mr Kevin HobbsMrs Kelly HobbsMaster Callum Hobbs

290 Object May I first point out my absolute disappointment at the lack of communication from London borough of Sutton regarding proposed plans for plot s87, very very disappointed we received no confirmation or invitation for a meeting on 16th March despite claiming you had written toresidents in the borough , I live in this borough and have received no correspondence from Lbs regarding S87 therefore I would like to voice my following concerns.

1. What financial benefit will this bring to our community and how will this project be funded( hopefully NOT by council taxpayers) though I doubt this the case.

2. With education facilities at bursting point throughout the borough and with the lbs having to make savings due to the austerity cuts proposed by the government, how are you looking for a smooth cost effective integration of more children in the borough also how will this befunded.

3. How does lbs plan on compensating local businesses on the Kimpton trading estate as I feel this will have a direct impact upon their businesses and the possibility of businesses reducing staff numbers to help reduce overheads therefore having a direct impact onunemployment within our community ( how will these unemployed be financed ).

4. How does lbs find it necessary for a traveller site on plot s87 which happens to be right next door to a place we lay our local residents to rest , I find this very disrespectful to every resident in our community .

5. Does lbs have any plans in place and the funding in place to consider moving the recycling centre currently placed on the Kimpton trading estate , the reason I ask this is because I will no longer feel safe for myself to pass a travellers site at any time of the day (If this is goingto stop me going to the recycling centre you should now know I will not use any shop or business on the estate due to the safety of my family ).

6. Has anyone at lbs thought about the route that is highly used by our local community and young children who attend Brookfield primary school on Ridge road ?


290 Mr & Mrs J Heasman 291 Object We object to the proposal S87. We do not want the land north of Kimpton Park Way to be built into a Gypsy & Travellers site. We live on Tonfield Road which is very near this area and we do not want the problems associated with travellers near to where we live. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

293 Roy Glasscock 294 Object I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed plan to put a Travellers' Site in Sutton on Plot S87. This would have a hugely detrimental effect on the local community causing house values to plummet and damaging local retail and business as people try to avoid thearea.

I also object to the secretive way the council have gone about this proposal. They have failed to notify local residents and I only found out about this terrible proposal though other means.

Please cancel this proposal immediately for the good of the community and the borough.


294 Emma Dowden 295 Object I object to the proposed traveller site at kimpton park way. I grew up in Epsom/ewell near the traveller site and me and my friends received lots of abuse from the traveller children. This continued into our teenage years. Was horrible to feel scared. My mum worked next to the siteat Mercedes and would receive abuse from them too. I don't want my children to go through what me and my friends did and don't want them living anywhere near us.


295 Liam O'Neill 296 Object I have just been informed of the proposal for the travellers site adjacent to Sutton cemetery, we are a business that trades on Kimpton industrial estate and have grave reservations about the proposal. This industrial estate has just undergone a major cash injection to raise itsstanding to one of the premier commercial sites in the south and the good work done so far would likely be undermined if this proposal were to be pushed through.

Whilst I sympathise and understand the need to find a solution for the travellers it is well documented that an influx of this number will add to safety, security and waste concerns. Should the proposal be sanctioned I for one would seriously reconsider our long term tenancy atKimpton Industrial site.


296 Dr P Chandrakasan 297 Object We are sutton residents and are against this proposal. Local retail will be affected as people may not want to pass the site. The costs of clearing rubbish from this site will be taken from the council tax we all pay.

Strongly against proposed travellers site.


297 Kevin Rynne 298 Object I am writing to object to the proposed travellers site off the Kimpton industrial estate.I object for the following reasons,1. Our schools are already oversubscribed with no funding for extra places for our local population as it is the site will place increased demand.2. It will place increased strain on our health and social care services which are clearly already struggling having faced many cuts in the past few years.3. The council is telling us that it is having to cut certain services, is struggling financially, this proposal could potentially have a transient population of up to 1000 people , local services will no be able to cope with extra demand it will place on our surgeries, hospital, servicessuch as waste disposal etc.4. The proposed site is next to the cemetery with should remain a place where people can be at peace, I would consider it disrespectful to have a travellers site next to this which would generate noise and extra traffic.5 It will increase the amount of traffic in an already conjested area6 Sutton already provides more travellers sites than many of our neighbouring boroughs.


298 Russell Bennett 299 Object I wish to register my concerns against the proposal S87 for a travellers site alongside the Sutton Cemetery.

The first reason I have against this is the noise pollution which will come from this site when relatives and friends visit their loved ones in the cemetery.

The second reason I have against this is the additional traffic this site will cause. The Alcorn Close entrance is just not capable of additional traffic which will not just be cars but lorries and vans. To make a new entrance down onto the Kimpton Road site is also not suitable asthere is already a tremendous amount of traffic using this for access to the businesses and to Tesco’s.

The third reason is that the Kimpton Road Estate provides a large amount of employment to local residents and the companies have chosen this Estate because of its reputation and the security that it provides. Having a travellers site on its Estate will have a detrimental effect onany new businesses looking to set up there.


299 Brian Stanton 300 Object I have just viewed your future proposals for my local area and feel I must object to the proposed Gypsy and Travellers site in Kimpton Park Way.

I have two grandchildren that attend Brookfield Primary School and feel strongly that this type of site that close to a primary school is totally inappropriate for the area. It is also to close to


16

Page 997

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response300 Michelle Hethersay 301 Object To the planning team, I strongly object to the above plans, I live within a 2 minute walk of the proposed site and object to it.

I cannot believe that Sutton council will allow a 'travellers site' on this land ....... I am on my own with three children with disabilities and life is such a worry, and all I have ever seen and heard about 'travellers sites' is awful, and it worries me no end. The property prices willdefinitely fall and if I knew there was a travellers site near a property I would go no where near it.

Will there be a meeting about this at the civic office? Is so I would like to know when?

Why can't you put a tram link through there??

Honest to god I did not sleep at all last night.


301 Mrs Lisa Legg 302 Object I am emailing an objection to the above plot becoming a travellers site.

I have worked on the Kimpton Industrial park for 13 years and seen many changes for the good over these years to improve this Estate.There are already traffic problems with the access to this local area and a traveller site would only increase the amount of traffic.The land next to a Cemetery should be reserved for a more tranquil and peaceful setting.

The increase in the number of people in a small area will have a knock on effect on all local services, which are already stretched to their limits and are already subject to cuts.


302 Simon Clark 303 Object Have just heard about the proposed travellers site on Kimpton Park Way, I think disgraceful that living so close to the site (I live on Ridge Road) that did not receive any notification regarding the meeting on 16/03/2016. I would have been there to voice my objection.

The planned site is very close to cemetery, schools and industrial area and there an unsuitable location for a gypsy site. I also understand that funding for the site will have to come from the local tax payers, I find this totally unacceptable.


303 Debbie & Paul Breach 304 Object It has come to our attention regarding the proposed siting of a Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way.

We do not feel that this proposal is acceptable for the area. As a resident of this borough for over 50 years I have seen many changes, some for the good some not. Unfortunately this proposal is not acceptable for this area.

We have an excellent local School, Glenthorne High School, which is already very oversubscribed, additional families in the area would create even more pupils to be accommodated. The land that you have earmarked is so close to the cemetery, which is currently a verypeaceful place as it should be. I am concerned that this land may be needed in future for further burial plots, and would the travellers site impact on the solitude of the cemetery where people go to remember their loved ones. How could you possibly ensure that noise andpollution from the travellers does not impact on such a sacred place.

Although I realise this is only a proposal, I feel that as a resident of this borough views of those resident should be heard.


304 Brian D Bull 305 Object I have just viewed your future proposals for my local area and feel I must object to the proposed Gypsy and Travellers site in Kimpton Park Way.

I have two grandchildren that attend Brookfield Primary School and feel strongly that this type of site that close to a primary school is totally inappropriate for the area. It is also to close to an active cemetery where people go for quite reflection and solitude.


306 Martin Bond 307 Object I'm writing to strongly lodge my objection to the proposed Travellers site Reference: Plot S87 for the reasons listed in the attached document. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

307 Kelly Mumford 308 Object I am writing to of object to proposal S87 - Land north of Kimpton Park Way Burial space, Gypsy and

Travellers site, open space.

My main concern amongst others is, I have a child due to move up to high school next year and I am concerned that my chances of getting her into our desired, already oversubscribed school are going to be extremely difficult if they are expected to accommodate an influx ofchildren.

We moved within the Glenthorne catchment area 3 years ago so my daughter stood a high chance of gaining a place at the school. As a council tax paying members of the borough, I do not feel it is fair for her place to be jeopardised by people who do not consciously chose tolive in the borough of Sutton.


309 Katie Edwards 310 Object This is to register my objection to the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way.

I would have attended the meeting on 16th March, but no notification of the meeting was received, despite the council saying it had put a notification postcard through local residents' doors.

You state in the Local Plan Issues document that the Government has reclassified travellers and gypsies and those currently residing on the existing two sites provided no longer meet that classification, yet you will continue to safeguard those two sites. This is unnecessary, butthe council has chosen to do this. I strongly object to creating more sites which are also unnecessary just because these existing sites are crowded. Especially when one is privately owned - why should council money be spent on easing the conditions in a privately owned site?You are going against Government advice so I cannot support this proposed action.

You state in the draft policy that any site should not have unduly adverse impact on the local environment, character of the area, noise pollution, traffic movements etc - but a site in this location will have all these adverse impacts. The noise from the building of the site alone willimpact local residents and traffic is already a black spot here with the Tesco, waste site and various local businesses.

I believe the council can better spend its money elsewhere. Please do not go ahead with the proposed site.


310 Costas Evlambiou 311 Object I emailing as I am opposed to this plot as potential site

In sutton we are very highly populated with schools and hospitals and the community can not handle anymore

As a resident I not happy with these plans as I am sure all of the other SM postcodes will not be if you would like to contact please do


311 Samantha Reddick 312 Object Please can you send me details about the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way. When is this proposed to be built please?I understand that there was a local residents' meeting very recently. How come we did not have any notification through the door about this meeting please, nor anyone else in the locality?

Is the proposed piece of land not being kept free as a future extension to the adjacent cemetery? It is clearly going to be needed for that reason to accommodate all the decent, law abiding, clean, Sutton residents already living in this area, is it not?

Please send all information and dates of future residents' meetings. It is simply not right to push ahead with this without fully engaging, in an open and transparent way, with local homeowners.


17

Page 998

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response312 Nadia Boylan 313 Object For the proposed travellers site on Kimpton rd,

* FIRST

I think that this site can be use to serve our community in a better way, it's already proved to be a useful industrial estate accommodating more than 50 businesses,which have made a marked improvement to jobs and local amenities, You are putting these at risk if you choose this site for the travellers,

* SCHOOLS

Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the already growing children population.Even more of our children suffer by not being able to gain places at their local school.this will have an impact on more traffic due to parents of children travelling to different schools for their children.I also feel having the Travellers site right near to Glenthorne high school will have a negative effect on the already influential young people.

* DOCTORS SURGERIES

The doctors surgeries are again oversubscribed and it's already difficult to gain an appointment,having an influx of another 1000 people in the local community will see these being stretched even more.and waiting times will increase.

* HOSPITALS

Our local Hospital St Helier’s just about meets the needs of our already overpopulated community, Waiting times will increase, which will cause an impact on services that are already stretched,Also if the plan for St Helier’s to be closed, then this will also have a negative impact.

* 999 SERVICES

Having more than 1000 people added to our community will cause significant problems with our services, last year my son who broke his ankle in Morden parkwaited more than 2 and a half hours for an ambulance to arrive,Having the Travellers site there will cause more road traffic which would potentially cause more delays for emergency services.

* WASTE DISPOSAL

With the local amenities cuts have already been made to the Kimpton Rd waste disposal, Knowing the clean up fees of most travellers sites around the borough.The local Kimpton Rd waste disposal could be affected and may not be able to cope with the extra waste.

* CEMETERY

This is the Final resting place for many people past and future. Having the travellers site so close to the cemetery is not only disrespectful.But may cause families to feel threatened to enter the cemetery due to being too close to the travellers land as they then may claim that as their own.This will stop people from tending to their loved ones resting place.Also access to the cemetery from the travellers site will give open access to many people's houses.

To actually have this planned without the knowledge of the local residents is appalling i have lived here in sutton all my life,was born at St Helier’s and attended school in the borough.This plan will put our local borough in debt of more than £1.000.000, Which i'm sure that our borough can’t afford.to implement this site the council have already made cuts to Mencap, The life centre to the elderly and disabled residents, and to other local amenities.

There is another travellers site in woodmansterne, which will prove to be a better site for the travellers as they will have a larger community to be able to manage their estate in a better way,


313 Michael and MariaKitto

314 Object We strongly object to this proposal. It will cause our overstretched resources being unable to cope with the demands on Schooling, Medical Services, Emergency Services and removal of refuse in the area.We would like to maintain the order and security of our area, and feel that the influx of approximately 1000 people in this area would not be conducive to this.


314 Jeffrey Lucas 315 Object I strongly object to proposed Traveller’s site on junction of A217/Kimpton Way ! The A217 is one of the most congested roads in the area! This is madness. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

315 Morag Mather 316 Object Our Company FM Marble Ltd bought into the Kimpton Road Industrial Estate 3 years ago.

It was fairly run down with many empty properties. We have seen major companies recently bring their business here, and estate is on the up.

The news that a large travellers site may be built here is a worry and we may see empty business properties again as new Companies may not wish to come here.

The estate is very quiet here at weekends as most business are closed. We feel a 1000 plus people living here will impact all the local amenities.

We pay very high ground rent to Sutton Council, and if problems arise on the estate what will Sutton Council do to readdress this.

We object strongly to this proposal.


316 Dominic Pascal 317 Object I would like this email to represent my objection to the proposed Gypsy site in Sutton. If there are further steps I need to make to lodge this objection please let me know. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

317 Ann Maguire 318 Object I would not agree to this site because of the amount of travellers should not be aĺlowed. Another reason for my I do not want this is my mother is buried at Sutton cemetery and I very often go up there to have a quiet moment with her and a lot of people do the same. This wouldbe ruined if they were allowed in.


318 Andrew Dawson 319 Object I wish to formally object to plans to create a travellers site on land adjacent to Sutton cemetery. The services in this area are already stretched and an influx of hundreds of extra people will exasperate the problem greatly.

I remember spending a year when I had to finish a 12 hour nightshift, come home and then do a 2 hour school run back to Wandsworth town centre because there were no places at any local schools for our daughter. Will this situation will be helped or made worse by yourproposal ?.Can you not find a use for this land that would be supported by the local community ?. Because i'm sure that this current proposal would be rejected if put to a local vote.


319 Angela Gray 320 Object I very much object to the traveller site on Kimpton road park way !!! I live in Ridge road and if this goes ahead it will be detrimental to the whole of Sutton. eg Increase traffic, Rubbish to clear away, school places taken etc and how could you do this to the poor people of Suttonthat have loved ones in the cemetery ?


321 Martin Bark 322 Object UpdateI have just seen the comment below on the petition against S87 website. "The planning team told me that - and I quote "postcards were delivered to every household in Sutton to inform them about this and the meeting that was held last Wednesday 16 March at the library opposite The Harvester in Sutton Common Road - I have spoken to friends,neighbours and family in 8 different streets and none of them received any such postcard."No such postcards were delivered to Barrington Road, this is a serious breach of the notification process.I strongly suggest to remain in any way legally correct Sutton council need to restart this notification process or be open to a class action by all the affected people in our community.


322 Marc Muino 323 Object I am emailing to object to the proposed move to place a traveller's site on the north land of Kimpton Park Way, adjacent to the cemetery.The local community and its services (schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals) are already struggling without sharply adding to the number of people residing here.I would much rather the land be expanded into more space for the cemetery.


323 Mrs Laura Stokes 324 Object I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed travellers site near the Kimpton Park industrial Estate for the following reasons:

· We do not want a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. We find it disrespectful. Would you buy a loved one a plot right next to a traveller site?

· Expected cost quoted in excess of 1 million pounds for which the council has no funding. So residents will be paying for this. We are already facing a hike in our council tax and other services have been cut (children's services and mobile library service).

· We do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move ifthis proposal happens. Would they stay in the borough. What about the jobs that they provide for local people?

· Extra traffic on the A217 at an already difficult junction. Two proposals were made for access to the site. Off the Kimpton Park Way way on the Kimpton estate right opposite the road down to Tesco's , or the second option is access right next to the cemetery entrance itself.

Sutton needs lifting up, not dragging down.


18

Page 999

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response324 Amy Thurlbeck 325 Object Please accept this email as my formal objection to the proposed travellers site to be located on land north of the Kimpton Park Way.

I live in Oldfields Road, just down the road from Kimpton Park Way and I am concerned that the proposed travellers site will affect house prices in the local area.

If the site opens, it will clearly impact local council services such as waiting times at doctors surgeries and hospitals, along with impacting local schools.

I would prefer for this site to be used to build a youth centre or something that will benefit those people already living in Sutton and paying council tax.


325 Gary Jenkins & KarenLewis

326 Object We are writing with regard to the proposal for the permanent traveller site near Kimpton Industrial Estate, next to Sutton cemetery.

We strongly oppose this proposal for many reasons, as listed below.

As Sutton residents, who live very close to this site - our garden backs on to the cemetery - we feel this will be nothing but detrimental to the area and Sutton as a whole.

After enduring many months of noise pollution and traffic issues whilst the Kimpton Industrial Estate expanded, it was finally finished and many new businesses and companies are now up and running and have become an important asset to the community - providing servicesand not too mention the extra jobs they have created. We fear if a traveller site is placed so close, these businesses and companies will leave Kimpton and relocate to another area.

We worry that property prices in the area will depreciate, as this area will no longer be the sought after area it currently is, this having a personal effect on ourselves and our children's futures.

The local schools, which are currently some of the best in the country and a very big pull for families wanting a good education for their children will also suffer - we have enough problems trying to get our children into our preferred school now - it will be even harder with such aninflux of extra children in the borough. This is an issue we will be personally dealing with in a couple of years when it's time for our daughter to move up to secondary school.

And lastly being next to a cemetery. Sutton cemetery is a very peaceful, well maintained and tranquil place, this peace will be seriously affected. We know of families who have children buried in the cemetery and visit on a regular basis, staying by the graves for long periods oftime to remember their children and feel near to them, that peace will be broken if this site goes ahead. We feel this is totally disrespectful. We were led to believe that the land surrounding the cemetery was protected as expansion land for cemetery use, how is it now allowed tobe developed for this purpose?

In conclusion, we see no positive reasons why this site should be in this location, only negative ones. So we strongly object to this proposal and ask that you please listen to the voice of the local people, who contribute to the cost of the running of this borough via their taxes anddo not let this proposal get the go ahead.


329 John Connor 330 Support Am completely in favour of putting a travellers site in the borough behind Sutton Cemetery The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

330 Caroline Wigmore 331 Object I would like to object to the proposal to build a Gypsy and Travellers Site north of Kimpton Park Way.

It seems to us that the local services are already stretched very thin, from our experiences in St Helier's delivery ward and in securing a nursery place for our toddler. I wonder what impact the sudden arrival of a large group of people would have on schools and the local healthservices.

I also suspect that those visiting buried loved ones in the cemetery will either find the traveler's site distressing or they will avoid visiting the cemetery altogether. For many people, a cemetery is a sacred place, and is meant for quiet reflection.

I would rather see that space either used to expand the cemetery, or for public playground space, in a neighbourhood that offers little/nothing for small children - no children's centre, no parks (save the park behind Tesco, which has so much dog-fouling that my children can't playon the grass), no programmes, no playgroups.

Litter, fly-tipping and dog fouling is already a big, embarrassing problem for Sutton, and one that I wish was addressed with more vigour. I can't imagine what it would be like if these problems increased.

We often see car crashes at the junction of the A217 and Sutton Common Road. The proposed location of the site would apply more pressure to an already confusing and dangerous junction; access to and from the site could even be unsafe, not to mention access to thecemetery, Life Centre and the Harvester.


331 Sarah Summerfield 332 Object I am writing to object to the proposed travellers site off the Kimpton industrial estate.

I object for the following reasons,

1. Our schools are already oversubscribed with no funding for extra places for our local population as it is. The site will place increased demand on local schools.

2. It will place increased strain on our health and social care services which are clearly already struggling having faced many cuts in the past few years.

3. The council is telling us that it is having to cut certain services, and is struggling financially, this proposal will place increased demand on local services which will not be able to cope with extra demand, i.e health and social care.

4. The proposed site is next to the cemetery with should remain a place where people can be at peace, I would consider it disrespectful to have a travellers site next to this which would generate noise and extra traffic. This land had been set aside for use by the cemetery.

5 It will increase the amount of traffic in an already congested area

6 Sutton already provides more travellers sites than many of our neighbouring boroughs.


332 Eileen & ScottRobinson

333 Object We are writing to register our total opposition to the proposed traveller's site in Sutton.

We believe the site could be better used. At a time when Sutton is facing a school place crisis and housing space in the borough is extremely short. The current residents would benefit from the space being used to remedy these problems before offering up valuable space toTravelers.

Sites throughout the UK have carried a high cost for the taxpayer. Modifying the site, cleaning up the site and dealing with litter and other debris is a high price to pay.

The site is very close to the A217 and a significant accident could happen should an animal or child from the site stray onto the road. May we remind you of the chaos caused last December at Hinchley Wood where two horses died and four people were hospitalised with seriousinjuries after crash on A3.New housing developments are taking place in the Borough with new residents, but we have no new hospital, GP surgeries or schools planned to cope with the increased demand. Adding a Traveller's site would only make the situation worse.


333 Steve Brewster 334 Object I am writing to register my objection to the proposed site for 194 permanent hard standing pitches for Romany Gypsies (Plot Ref S87).

Bearing in mind the over stretched resources for the following amenities· Schools

· Doctors Surgeries

· Hospitals

· 999 Services

· Waste Disposal

I am appalled that the Council should even consider this proposal.

In addition the cost of providing this facility cannot surely be justified.

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and that this proposal be rejected.


334 Sherif Aboul-Gheit 335 Object As far as I understand, you are the councillors on the Housing Committee who will make the decision about the proposed travellers site in Sutton. I live on Reigate Avenue and I petition against the Kimpton Travellers Site.

The decision you are about to make with regards to the subject matter could have a significant negative impact on my future and I urge you to stop the Kimpton Travellers site proposal please.

You have been doing a brilliant job to date promoting a successful Sutton. The message you have been trying to give out about Sutton being open for business might me at risk if such a proposal goes ahead. The proposed Kimpton site with its relative close proximity to the heardof Sutton could deter new businesses coming to Sutton. I believe "Opportunity Sutton", the council's investment arm, which has been doing a great job, could as a result find it difficult to continue to attract new investments in the future. In addition, current businesses mightconsider its' future expansion plans and perhaps moving out of Sutton all together.

Sutton was voted one of the top five places to live in London. Also, the London Mayor Boris Johnson said that Sutton's regeneration would enable Sutton to potentially compete with neighbouring business districts.

Because of your hard work, wise and sound decisions, the town centre has improved over the last couple of years. Kimpton Park is in relative proximity to the town centre. I would like to see Sutton continuing to improve and succeeding in the future. I hope you will make the rightdecision for Sutton, please stop the Kimpton Travellers site proposal. The stakes are high, please do not risk the great work you have been doing to date. As you are all aware, one decision can make the difference between success and failure.


336 Jeffrey Lee 337 Object I, Jeffrey Lee, strongly oppose the proposal of a permanent traveller's site near the Sutton Cemetery. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

19

Page 1000

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response337 Dave Brewster 338 Object I am writing to register my objection to the proposed site for 194 permanent hard standing pitches for Romany Gypsies (Plot Ref S87).

Bearing in mind the over stretched resources for the following amenities· Schools· Doctors Surgeries· Hospitals· 999 Services· Waste Disposal



On a more sensitive matter, I have relatives who have been laid to rest in the local cemetery and I am appalled at the prospect of the proposed site being situated so close by. A peaceful resting place for our lost loved ones will be no longer be so tranquil with such a large Gypsysite on top of it.



338 E.Cornwall 339 Object This e-mail is to record my opposition to the proposed Traveller Site at Kimpton Park Way. I hope that residents continue to show their disapproval to this proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

339 Sherif Aboul-Gheit 340 Object I understand this is a Government Law requirement and I appreciate the consultation the council is performing.

If the proposed Kimpton Park site goes ahead, I am not sure what assurances there are that the proposed 23 pitches does not increase and grow to 1,000 and even more on the long term. My main concern is the location within Sutton. I think the proposed Kimpton Park siteseems in relative close proximity to the heard of the town centre which might risk attracting new companies and derail the redevelopment plans for the North side of the High Street.

I do not mind you sharing my email with Sutton council, please do so.



342 Object I understand that you serve on the Housing Committee of Sutton Council in connection with the proposed travellers site adjacent to Sutton Cemetery.

May we first say that not only we were not aware of this proposal prior to the petition now running, but also we did not have any postcards? posted through our door in Ridge Road. I understand that the public meeting at the Life Centre was attended by only 10O residents -possibly because the majority of residents was unaware of such a meeting. This is borne out by the fact that over 3000 objections were posted in a few days since the petition went live. The thought that "implementation via a back door" springs to mind.

The siting of the site next to a place of rest is truly insensitive to families and friends loved ones who are buried here. I cannot comprehend the thought behind this decision. I am appalled.

Also the logistics of the impact on school places, doctors appointments and local hospitals is too much to place on the local Tax paying residents. Notwithstanding the fact that a council tax increase had just arrived on our doorstep, and explanation of impending cut in Council'sservices, how can the Council justify spending one million pounds on this proposal.

Finally, I understand that it is not even a legal requirement but just a problem of overcrowding on other sites. What about the overcrowding impact on local residents?

I trust you will take forward the above and we look forward to the public meeting on 21st June.


342 Douglas Slade 343 Object I have signed the petition to stop this going ahead as have many other people.

The local people are against it.


343 Linda Ashby 344 Object Sorry it is a no go, people who are attending funerals or even graves do not want travellers encroaching on their bereavement. Having seen what travellers do to other places surely we do not need this by a graveyard. Disrespectful to say the least. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

347 Mrs Wright 348 Object No to the travellers' site at Sutton Common Road cemetery. I am 76 years old and go the cemetery twice a week and have been for 60 years. I have two graves. Both my grandparents and my mother and my husband on the far side of the cemetery near the hill.I will not feel safe on my own so far away from the gate while the travellers are so near as well as the damage, rubbish and the stealing that they are known for - ie my two headstones plus whatever is on the graves etc. I am not the only one of the older people who go there.What about the peace and quiet one would expect of such a place? I have in the past had two headstones smashed to pieces which I had to pay for by yobs. The council etc do not want to know. We already have jobs etc and drunks getting in when the gates are closed andleaving litter, beer cans about the graves and having sex I have seen the evidence.It is a disgrace that Sutton council would even think of it taking place, if it happens, I will tell all my friends and family not to use the cemetery ever.And no doubt have the entrance blocked with their cars, vans etc and parking wherever. What about the hard work the staff have to do to keep the cemetery looking so well kept as it is now. Are they going to put extra straff on to keep an eye on things? I don't think so. Nevermind their human rights what about ours, the taxpayer. Vote for Sutton council never. PS: I have to buy a lot of insurance for my two graves. I am sure they will want to know about this.


350 Rosemary Barber 351 Object I object most strongly to this proposal for a travellers site in our borough. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

354 Conrad Watton 355 Object I write to you to protest about the ill advised and ill conceived proposal published in the Sutton council's Five year development and planning document considering the installation of a Traveller site on the Kimpton Industrial Estate.It is hard to believe that the council is planning to provide up to 192 domiciles potentially introducing up to 1000 people into an area where services are already stretched to breaking point. At this point in time it can take up to 18 days to get a routine Doctor's appointment with myGP.Over the last three years the Kimpton industrial Estate has developed into aThriving area with potential to become even better. However such an installation as a Travellers site within the area could cause any prospective traders and ventures to relocate losing potential employment opportunitiesSchools places in the area are at a premium and introducing new competition for places would only create hostility in that is already a becoming a volatile situation.As the most expensive asset that most people possess is their home the placing of a such like facility into a highly concentrated residential area and the effect it would have on house prices would not be conducive to the harmony of the area and would be better placed in a morerural areaI strongly recommend that the you and the council reconsider these proposals


356 Lyn Jenkins 357 Object We attended the public consultation at the Sutton Life Centre on Wednesday 16th March. Although we had received notification of the meetings regarding the Public Consultations that were taking place it was clear that many people attending the meeting had only just heardabout them via social media.







357 Anil and TarunaKappor

358 Object We object to proposal for travellers site near Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

358 Joanne Brewster 359 Object I am writing to register my objection to the proposed site for 194 permanent hard standing pitches for Romany Gypsies (Plot Ref S87).

Bearing in mind the over stretched resources for the following amenities· Schools· Doctors Surgeries· Hospitals· 999 Services· Waste Disposal



On a more sensitive matter, I have relatives who have been laid to rest in the local cemetery and I am appalled at the prospect of the proposed site being situated so close by. A peaceful resting place for our lost loved ones will be no longer be so tranquil with such a large Gypsysite on top of it. This angers and upsets me greatly. I would certainly not choose to bury any further family members at this cemetery.



359 Theresa Leung 360 Object I am writing to register my objections to proposed travellers site ref: Plot S87. This will mean extra pressure on our already stretched GP surgeries and local St Helier hospital. This would be an increase pressure on local schools, waste disposal and 999 services.

I suggest the site be better served as a nature conservation area and local community farm for our local children to learn and explore.


20

Page 1001

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response362 Michael Coote 363 Object I live on Ridge Road, Sutton which backs onto Kimpton Park way.

I’m sending you this correspondence to raise my concerns with the proposed S87 Gypsy and traveller’s site.Firstly I would like to state that while we may need to find permanent locations for the aforementioned I don't feel we should give up our valued green spaces to do so!!Site S87 would be unsuitable for the proposal due to, but not limited to the following points.When you consider the need for parking and turning with room for emergency vehicle access, the site is too small and if the proposal went through it wouldn't be long before you had to find yet another site to ease overcrowding.Access to the site will cause a lot of disruption onto the already busy industrial estate; traffic on the very busy A217 will be affected by access to and from the site.It will be unsightly for all the surrounding residents and visitors; it will have a negative effect on property value and saleability of properties in the local vicinity.We already have problems with noise on the Kimpton Park way due to people racing cars up and down the road on weekends. I have personally reported this to the local police and am aware that other residences of Ridge Road have also. If you add another potential 800 peopleto this noise pollution will only get worse.Visitors to the Graveyard next door will be greeted with an unsightly caravan site and noise level above normality while they are visiting and mourning, this is unjust and immoral and this reason alone should be enough to scrap the proposal!!!I don't believe the site has the amenities needed to house 800 people, this would mean digging up the roads to put them in place causing more traffic issues for local residence and passing traffic.In short it is too disruptive to the local area and visitors to the local area and should not go ahead,If the land there is to be developed it should be used to extend the graveyard thus easing the need for limited burial space!!


363 Mr A F Hook 364 Object You should hang your heads in shame for even considering this proposed travellers site without first consulting the local residents. A token gesture of a few postcards in a couple of roads does not constitute canvassing the local area. Yet again it appears Sutton council cannot beopen and transparent, and have clearly tried to railroad this proposal with no regard for the residents it will actually have an impact on. Massive cuts to local services to help fund this proposal are an absolute disgrace. This area needs regeneration, not a site that will have animpact on every local service, business and resident. The stats speak for themselves, with an increase in what are already local services under tremendous strain. Schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, emergency services, refuge collection, child services to name but a few, willall be put under even more pressure. Has anyone considered the fact that property prices in this area will decrease. When potential buyers search the local area, they will be dissuaded from buying because everybody knows the issues that a site like this will bring. I would love toknow how many councillors live in this immediate area, not many I reckon. If we are to accept travellers into our local community, and the council want them to integrate and contribute in a positive way, give them proper housing in proper areas. By definition,Travellers arenomadic?. A permanent site for a nomadic community is a contradiction. There is still a massive legal issue over this, as the Government's latest definition is still unclear and is at present open to legal challenge. How insensitive can you be to propose a site next to our localcemetery, This is a place of peace and quiet reflection for local residents. Just consider if you were laying flowers on the grave of a relative and you were confronted with the site. Local people have paid thousands of pounds to give their families a decent and final resting place.Go and have a look, it's a beautiful cemetery. This proposal is clearly not representative of local residents. You obviously have no concept of local problems or issues this site will cause. You need to remember you are public servants, accountable to the local public, working inthe best interests of local residents for a safer and decent local borough. Many of you will not even be Councillors when the true impact of this proposal is seen, in years to come. I will still be living here, unable to sell my property, living in fear and despising every one of you.Please, I implore you, do the decent and right thing. Reject this proposal for the sake of all concerned and do one good thing in your position of power.


366 Lyn and DouglasJenkins

367 Object We attended the public consultation at the Sutton Life Centre on Wednesday 16th March. Although we had received notification of the meetings regarding the Public Consultations that were taking place it was clear that many people attending the meeting had only just heardabout them via social media.







370 Grant Jenkins 371 Object I learnt through social media that Sutton council are planning a Traveller's site at Kimpton Park.

To say I am shocked and saddened is somewhat of an understatement.

My little boy, Nathaniel Austin Jenkins, is buried in the cemetery next door.

To even think that Sutton council is even entertaining or debating this location of site has shocked and upset both my wife and myself beyond description.

Our son is not the only person buried at this beautiful place - so no doubt there are numerous other parents/relatives of those buried here that are deeply saddened by this dreadful and thoughtless/tactless plan.

Let me finish with a question to you all. Would you want a Travellers Site right next door (immediately next to) your buried loved one? For me this is the easiest question in the world to answer. NO.

You must not let this go ahead. Whether this is to meet a council promise over the next 15 years or another commitment.

Please ensure this does not happen.

If it does you will shatter my wife and I - we have already been through hell once when we buried our little son- please don't put us through it again.


371 Neil Pearson 372 Object Paul Scully conservative MP for Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park is also opposed to this proposal and has said that Sutton Council is "going further than is required by law." He is in the process of clarifying the legal requirement.I believe, as most in the area that Sutton Council is hiding behind this and forcing their own agenda.

In a perfect world where local services are not being cut and I might even see a street cleaner, I still would not want this.

As all agree in the area, this needs to be stopped now.


371 Neil Pearson 373 Object I have recently been informed of the proposed traveller site at Kimpton Park Way – S87. Unfortunately this came not from Sutton Council as most would expect, but from social media and local residents.














373 C Cave & R Grover 374 Object I am writing to you, to register my objection, at the news that you are proposing a permanent Travellers site near the Kimpton Strategic Industrial estate, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park. This would seem to be a most backward step, at a time when thelocal schools cannot provide enough places for the children already here, Doctors surgeries are bursting with patients, so getting an appointment is getting harder and harder. Waste disposal services have already had cuts made, and I believe, more are on the way, and yet youthink this would be a good time and place to introduce up to another thousand people? Hospitals are also struggling under the weight of numbers, and again you feel it's a good idea to bring in more people, to this situation, it really beggars belief! We pay an awful lot of money toyou,the Council, for diminishing services, of which a great deal of it will go on just making this site, hard standings, utilities etc, without the additional cost of upkeep and services for the people there. I reiterate that I am strongly against the proposal to use this site for this purpose,and request that you send me an estimation of the cost of providing and running such a site,


21

Page 1002

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response374 Rob Cole 375 Object As a local resident within three minutes walk of the proposed site I am very concerned about the impact to my family,the local environment and character of the area if this proposal were to go ahead.In the Sutton Local Plan Evidence Base Library > 8. Housing Gypsy & Traveller

Evidence Paper 3- Site Search July 2015 it states in the Cons section of the proposed site. Planning Designations: Part Safeguarded Land for a Cemetery Extension.Surely this should take priority. Other cemeteries that are short of space could also make use of this site.It alsostates: Access from Kimpton Park Way would require taking part of the Kimpton Linear Park. This is used for walkers and joggers and would be a great shame to lose it.Also stated: May impact on the nearby industrial area. This has obviously been stated for a good reason.It hastaken years to build up the Kimpton industrial area and is of major concern to the shops and businesses in the area and to local residents that work there.I am concerned that it would stop new business from coming to the Kimpton area.It would be terrible to see it decline.Finallyin the Cons: Site slopes sharply from north to south and development would require substantial earthworks.It sounds like it would cost us a lot of money to make this site suitable.


375 C Cave & R Grover 376 Object I am writing to you, to register my objection, at the news that you are proposing a permanent Travellers site near the Kimpton Strategic Industrial estate, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park. This would seem to be a most backward step, at a time when the localschools cannot provide enough places for the children already here, Doctors surgeries are bursting with patients, so getting an appointment is getting harder and harder. Waste disposal services have already had cuts made, and I believe, more are on the way, and yet you thinkthis would be a good time and place to introduce up to another thousand people? Hospitals are also struggling under the weight of numbers, and again you feel it's a good idea to bring in more people, to this situation, it really beggars belief! We pay an awful lot of money toyou,the Council, for diminishing services, of which a great deal of it will go on just making this site, hard standings, utilities etc, without the additional cost of upkeep and services for the people there. I reiterate that I am strongly against the proposal to use this site for this purpose,and request that you send me an estimation of the cost of providing and running such a site,


376 Robert Humphrey 377 Object I wish to raise my concerns at the proposed Travellers site at Kimpton Park Way.I believe this to much too close to existing houses and businesses.I would object to closeness to local amenities of this proposal.Looking at the area around Kimpton Park Way over the last few weeks there is currently a significant amount of litter already in this area and this proposal would I believe make the area worse.


377 Andy Morton 378 Object I am writing in relation to the proposed allocation for a Traveller’s site on Plot S87 - Land North of Kimpton Park Way.

Firstly, I would like to express my concern and frustration that, as a local resident in Leafield Road, we have not been informed by the council of this proposal and given the opportunity to be part of the consultation process. We only happened to find out about it when we receiveda note from another concerned resident. I am therefore concerned that there are still many local residents out there who are not aware of the proposal and would wish to comment on them. I do not believe that the council have adequately consulted on this matter with localresidents.

In terms of the proposal itself there are a number of concerns to the local residents and businesses. These include:-· The loss of potential future cemetery space

· The loss of amenity if the existing Kimpton Linear Park is affected

· The additional traffic in the locality

· The impact on the existing cemetery and its funeral services

· The impact on local schools & GPs’ which are already highly subscribed

· The impact on local residents

Having looked through the Gypsy and Traveller Evidence papers it is clear they are logically set out, however, just because a site meets certain criteria set by the council doesn't mean it is a good site for this purpose. I do not believe the Kimpton Park Way site is fit for thispurpose and do not agree with the pros set out on page 12 of the Evidence Paper 3. I have the following comments:-· It states that the land is not adjacent to any residential properties. Whilst it may be true there are no residential properties immediately next to the site, there are a very large number in very close proximity. So this statement is very misleading and is most definitely not apro for the site.

· It states that the site is already well screened. However, as noted in the cons, to make the site work, there has to be significant earthworks undertaken which is very likely to mean the loss of the screening already there. Therefore this pro is not appropriate for this site.

This means that there are potentially only 2 pros for this site – which is not enough to make it acceptable to be put forward for this potential use.

In addition, the cons noted are not explained in much detail so their impact is not really spelt out. I have the following comments on these:-· The existing planning designation is for the land to be reserved for burial space use. I would like to point out that in your consultation document identifying no changes to the local plan Map.12 on page 269 is identified as to remain as reserved for burial use and“PROPOSED NO CHANGE”. I therefore don't understand how on the one hand your proposals say this and then elsewhere it proposes use for a Traveller’s site. This is extremely misleading and you cannot have it both ways. I would assume that the “Proposed no change” ofuse would override the Traveller’s site proposal as being the more important designation.

· It states that the access to the site from Kimpton Park Way would mean the loss of part of the Kimpton Linear Park. This is unacceptable as it is a very well used park and would be a major loss of amenity for the area.

· It states that it may impact on the nearby industrial area. Yet it does not mention the large nearby residential area. How can this be ignored? This demonstrates that the pros and cons are not properly set out.

· As I noted above the substantial earthworks required on the site would impact on the existing screening. However, it would also have a major visual impact on the site as a whole which is not mentioned. It could also open the site up to the A217 which would have adetrimental impact on those on the site in terms of noise, pollution and vibration from road traffic. Further it would appear likely that there would need to be a substantial removal of earth from the site to lower levels and this is an unsustainable way to develop a site.

This means that there are more cons than noted in the council’s proposals which gives a misleading picture overall.

In summary, my view is that this site is not an appropriate site for use by Travellers now or at any time in the future. It has not been given a balanced view of the pros and cons and another site should be identified. It should therefore remain as its current designation for the longterm.


378 Terry Berry 379 Object I am totally SHOCKED, UPSET, SADDENED, SICKENED and OUTRAGED, that my family have to try and stop this becoming reality by appealing against this, and that you could even consider a PLANNING APPLICATION for a Travellers Site, next door to where my FAMILYhave FOUR Graves inside this cemetery.

One of our FOUR graves is NEW, with a brand new Gravestone, another has just been refurbished and the LEADED words replaced. Another two of our relative graves have also been cleaned up etc.

Whoever - even considered - letting this planning application come before the PLANNING COMMITTEE, appears to have NO COMMON SENSE and needs to understand people's feelings, who have families buried in this CEMETERY, obviously NO ONE ON THE PLANNINGCOMMITTEE has any FAMILIES buried there.

CEMETERIES ARE SACRED GROUNDS AND SHOULD BE LEFT WELL ALONE AND WELL AWAY FROM TRAVELLERS SITES.

OUR FAMILY ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECURITY, PRIVACY & PROTECTION, VANDALISM and DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH & ITEMS GOING MISSING FROM TOP OF GRAVES AND THE UPKEEP OF THE GRAVES, IN FACT THE REASONS AREOBVIOUS.

THERE WILL PROBABLY BE UNRESTRICTED ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.

ALSO THERE WILL BE ACCESS PROBLEMS IN AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED SITE, ESPECIALLY GETTING IN & OUT TO OLDFIELDS ROAD ETC.

THIS NEW TRAVELLERS SITE WOULD BE CLOSE TO RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES.

THE WHOLE PROPOSAL LACKS CREDIBILITY, AND MY FAMILY ARE APPALLED .

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE ACCESS ROAD ALCORN CLOSE, BECOMING A DUMPING GROUND.

IF YOU ALLOW THIS PLANNING APPLICATION, AND ANY OF THE ABOVE HAPPENS, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

WOULD IT BE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OR WOULD IT BE SUTTON COUNCIL, SO THAT WE MAY CLAIM ANY COMPENSATION FROM THEM IF NECESSARY ?

DON'T FORGET, IF YOU ALLOW THIS, YOU COULD BE OPENING UP A MINEFIELD ETC.

CAN YOU BE SURE THAT THE CHILDREN OF THESE TRAVELLER FAMILIES, WOULD NOT EVER BE PLAYING IN THE GRAVEYARD / CEMETERY?

NO ONE APPEARS TO HAVE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH.

WHO WILL BE FOOTING THE BILL TO CLEAR THE RUBBISH AND MESS THAT MAY INEVITABLY BE LEFT AROUND THE AREA.

PLEASE FIND SOME OTHER LOCATION FOR A TRAVELLERS SITE.


380 Rama Mathanmohan 381 Object Please feel free to forward this to the Sutton Council. As a local resident I am very surprised about this plan. I have attended many of the Sutton 2031 workshop and this travellers site plan was not mentioned in any of them. Due to lack of information and publicity given to thistravellers site, Can you please ask the council to extend the consultation period further by another month and write to all the resident informing the plan and get all their response before any decision on this. I feel the consultation was rushed in with little or no publicity given bythe council, which is very unfair.


381 David Smithson 382 Object I am putting in writing our objections for the proposed use of land North of Kimpton Park Way, being used for a permanent Travellers Site.I have relatives in the adjacent cemetery and feel that there is possibility Of Vandalism and waste being deposited over fence into the cemetery area .Also as a local resident ,i feel the traffic on the by pass will increase, (it is already a serious problem for residents.) . There are already insufficient local school places. We strongly object to these plans .


382 Nick and RhazelChawner

383 Object I am writing to register our objection to the proposed traveller site on land north of Kimpton Park Way.

We feel the proposed location is far too close to Brookfield Primary School, and will be both unsightly and potentially noisy, and therefore have a negative effect on pupils education.

Additionally, with the number of pitches and potential population occupying the site, local services, which are already stretched, will be further oversubscribed.

We feel the land could be better used as: as an extension to the cemetery, or for a small development of affordable housing, or for extending the industrial estate.


22

Page 1003

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response383 Elizabeth Stanley 384 Object I would like to register a protest to the proposed permanent Travellers Site on land north of Kimpton Park Way. This would put extreme pressure on already stretched health, hospitals, schools and waste disposal services.

The creation of 194 hard-standing pitches and the caravans and cars and towing vehicles that would inevitably end up on the site would be detrimental to this area of the borough, causing traffic problems, unsightly "camps" and huge amounts of rubbish.

This is really something we do not want in our borough.


386 Simon Hudson 387 Object My wife and I moved to Sutton Common (Barrington Road) in December and we love the area, neighbours, the community spirit and local shops and amenities.

We have been shocked and very deeply concerned to hear (through neighbours) about the plans to potentially build a permanent traveller site by the Kimpton Parkway next to the A217. We have had many, many sleepless nights worrying about the impact on the localcommunity, businesses and schools if this badly thought out proposal goes through.

Aside from the absolutely unbelievable fact that it sounds like existing local taxpayers would be paying for this (!) The area will not be able to cope with the massive drain on local resources, amenities, roads and schools that a new and large community would require. This willonly result in higher maintenance costs for the local council which I am sure budgets do not allow for…given that site cannot be afforded in the first place when other resources have been cut.

Additionally and of great concern, we have heard through local neighbours that a postcard was meant to be put through our letterbox notifying us of this potential planning activity and offering us the opportunity to meet and discuss the plans at The Harvester, Sutton CommonRoad. WE RECEIVED NO SUCH NOTICE! We only found out about the plans through other neighbours. If this is true and a meeting was arranged, this is very serious. My wife and I and other neighbours would have certainly attended to have our voices heard. To each of you asindividuals reading this I ask directly… if this potential planning and impact on the local community was 300 yards from your home- how would you feel about not being notified about the plan or the meeting??

I am 34 and have spent my entire adult life saving to buy a home for my wife and I. We chose Sutton Common for many reasons and love living here. PLEASE, I urge you please don’t approve these plans by the Kimpton Parkway, it will: put huge strain on the local area, reducejobs with some businesses already planning to leave, increase traffic, increase council maintenance costs and rip our lovely community apart.


388 Angela Warby 389 Object I would be against this proposal which I believe would bring untidiness in terms of general rubbish (possibility of rodent infestation) potential for animals to be roaming loose and the potential for antisocial behaviour in the area to be increased.I believe the site is inappropriate in terms of its proximity to the cemetery. I would feel uneasy sittingin the queue for the waste disposal and recycling plant. This area is already congested and the site is liable to worsen the situation.

This is a summary of my thoughts on the matter.


390 Imelda Cooke 391 Object I wish to register my objection to proposed Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

391 Dermot Cooke 392 Object I wish to register my objection to proposed Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

393 M Hadjilah 394 Object I am a local resident in the Sutton borough and I am against the planning proposal for this travellers site behind Sutton Cemetery and the Linear Park leading down to the dump.There are several reasons for this.1. I believe this would only add to the already very busy traffic around Tesco's and the A217.2. This would affect the funeral services and visits to the Cemetery.3. The local schools, GP Surgeries, St Helier Hospital are already over subscribed with the increased amount of people moving into the borough and could not cope with the extra amount of people.


394 Rob Parsons 395 Object no travellers sites!!!! rather something useful like a school or doctor's surgery.no more supermarkets!! too many

sutton could do with more activities for children. please don't waste space by ramming more people in the area! too much new builds going up in the area. It will be horrible traffic all the time.

tell the travellers to travel somewhere else


395 Mr & Mrs Phillips 396 Object My family and I wish to oppose the proposal for a Travellers site at Kimpton Park Way.

1) It seems very disrespectful to have so close to a Cemetery.

2) Schools in this catchment area, are already oversubscribed.

3) Dr's Surgeries and St Helier Hospital already at breaking point.

1000 people in this small community, will burden all the above and cause traffic issues I am sure in and out of the location.

I think also local trade will be affected, as will homeowners, who may well wish to sell in the future, as such a site may de-value the area.

These are the reasons we wish to oppose the application.


396 Karen Burrows 397 Object Regarding the proposal of removal of plot s87 for removal from green belt and proposed use for traveller site, I live in this area and do not want it to go ahead on Kimpton Way site.

I do not agree with this proposal, the area is already has had a lot of commercial building on it very recently, the area is now full of commercial buildings and industrial estates and the green space for wildlife has been reduced - We need to retain some green belt land in this area.

The population is already very densely populated, , the local primary school the smallest catchment area in the borough due to the number of people living and has had add a second bulge class to meet the needs of the children in local community. There is already going to bean increase in the number of people living here when the flats in the old burger king and gas works site are built. I believe that this will put enough pressure on the local infrastructure without adding again to this with a permanent traveller site North of Kimpton Park Way Road.


397 Marco Bellisai 398 Object I object to the permanent travellers site in Sutton for all the reasons that you have highlighted in your leaflet. This would only bring difficulty and challenge to an already under-invested borough of Sutton. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

398 Jenny Williams 399 Object We live in Ridge Road Sutton we find the proposal to make Linear Park Site a permanent site for travelers utterly ridiculous it's unfair on taxpayers people who work hard to pay their mortgages and rent plus council tax! It's also backed into our back garden? Would you considermaking a permanent travellers site at the back of your property? I sincerely think not! We as an household of full time workers and taxpayers are totally against this proposal and it shouldn't be happening in the near future we should leave them at their own devices and travelaround uk and Europe real gypsies do not have permanent sites! Look at Woodmansterne they've been given all that land for nothing!!


399 Charlotte Burke 400 Object I wish to lodge my formal protest in the strongest possible manner to the proposed location of a permanent Travellers site adjacent to Sutton cemetery.

As a resident of this borough I am aware that our services are already stretched to the limit. Doctors' surgeries are overwhelmed with their patient numbers, the A&E department at our nearest hospital, St Heliers is already overwhelmed, our fire, police, ambulance, care services,waste disposal, etc - in fact any facility you care to mention - are all struggling to provide adequate services for the existing residents of this borough.

It is grossly unfair to expect the existing services to be able to stretch themselves to take on the further burden of coping with 194 hard standing pitches.

Please do not allow this to happen.


401 Ramsey Family 402 Object We wish to strongly object to the proposed travellers site on Kimpton Park Way Plot S87. The local schools and services are already stretched to breaking point.

We have lived in the area for over 30 years as do most of our family, and we feel the council could better use this site to serve the local community it already has, ie: a purpose built council nursery to enable mums to return to work at affordable childcare rates or new councilhomes for existing LBS residents who cannot get housing, day care centre for our elderly, the list is endless. It is not acceptable that Sutton Council is proposing this site, when its own residents need so much, please look after the residents you already have.


402 Gill Dixon 403 Object I would like to object to the proposed travellers site in Kimpton Road.I cannot see how this would benefit the local community.

I feel that this will affect our property prices, would the Council be liable for the deprecation of our properties.

The local schools in the borough are already over crowded and local children are unable to secure a place in the local schools, how do you intend to accommodate the travellers children within the current schools.

Will the travellers be paying council tax like you and I , is it possible to extend their current site in Banstead.

As I have purchased a plot at the Sutton cemetery, I would like to know why I have not been advised about the proposal, my family and friends have been buried at this cemetery and feel that it is disrespectful to have a travellers site next door.


403 Simon Le Roy 404 Object May I take this opportunity to register my strongest objection to the proposed travellers site near the Kimpton strategic industrial estate.

The idea of a permanent site for 194 hard standing pitches with an influx of up to a 1000 people is very alarming to say the least, this area is already over burdened the local services are stretched to the limit. This part of the A217 has increasing traffic with the introduction of theKimpton industrial estate and the new storage facilities which has created a choke point, with additional traffic from the proposed site it would be unbearable. I think this land could be better used by creating something for adults fitness, we all need to do more exercise.


404 Amanda Buller 405 Object I do not agree with the policy para S87 and S94 for the following reasons:-

This proposed travelers site will be an added expense imposed on Sutton ratepayers to create and maintain. These funds could be put to better use within the borough for the benefit of all.The area of the proposed site at Kempton Park Way is already heavily congested with traffic using the supermarket and the building outlets.The phasing of the existing two signalised junctions onto the A217 do not adequately handle the existing traffic on A217 and traffic accessing the commercial sites, with constant queuing .Adding further traffic from the travelers site and the natural increase in traffic on A217 will create more congestion which is a major trunk.If this land is used for residential use it will interrupt the Metropolitan Open Land & Green Chain Associated Open Space belt.The Kempton Park Way site was reserved for the extension of Sutton cemetery. What proposals are in place within the borough of Sutton to provide cemetery facilities for the boroughs residence once the existing Sutton cemetery site is full?The policy does not clearly state how many additional people will be catered for on the Kempton Park Way site.The policy does not state if the site complies with the conditions listed for any other future proposed sites mentioned in the policy


405 Mr S Hadjilah 406 Object I am a local resident in the Sutton borough and I am against the planning proposal for this travellers site behind Sutton Cemetery and the Linear Park leading down to the dump.There are several reasons for this.1.I believe this would only add to the already very busy traffic around Tesco's and the A217.2.This would affect the funeral services and visits to the Cemetery.3.The local schools, GP Surgeries, St Helier Hospital are already over subscribed with the increased amount of people moving into the borough and could not cope with the extra amount of people.


23

Page 1004

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response406 E R Wilson 407 Object Why weren't we consulted on this

I have just found out about this from a neighbourWhy did the council not let us have our say in this? When I spoke to other people in our community they told me about some meetings that had been planned and gone.I have never been informed about these meetings - why?You are meant to be the voice of our community. I am an older person who enjoys walking along the lovely Walk Way on the Kimpton Road Estate which the Council and the local businesses made possible. To place a Travellers Site nearby would or could stop older peopleusing the walk way as they might feel unsafe.It is proposed to put this site next to our local Cemetery. Who will keep this clean and tidy. As you will be aware from other Boroughs and the media the mess that Travellers leave around their sites and the Borough will cost you /me more money to clean up. Where is thiscoming from. I think the LBS should think about this. There are other areas in the Borough were the site could be situated where it would not have such a dramatic impact on the community. I feel that putting this site next to the Cemetery is distasteful and disrespectful to thepeople who have family buried there or who are going to use it at a later date.We have a very different community with a large influx from other countries in our borough and we have had to change some of our ways to accommodate different cultures at the cost of the taxpayer or other services being downgraded. What are you going to change next to payfor this site to be installed and policed.You keep telling us how stretched the services are in the borough do you not think that this will cost us more money in the long run or will we have to pay more taxes towards it.


407 Robert Humphrey 408 Object I learn that there is a proposal for a travellers site in Kimpton Park Way area of Sutton.I believe this would be a backward step in the regeneration of that area of Sutton. I wrote to you regarding litter and looking at that area on my visits to the dump and Tesco there is nothing there to be proud of.I urge you to find a more appropriate site for these people.Regarding the trees in Glenthorn School nothing has happened since the headmaster wrote to me late last month. Currently there is a large container immediately in front of the trees. I am unsure when the building work at the school is due to finish but it seems unlikely they willlook at tree trimming in the next few weeks.I will keep you informed


408 Wulstan Earley 409 Object It has come to my attention that the Council is planning to create TWO travellers sites in the Sutton area in the near future, particularly the proposed Kimpton Park site.I am particularly incensed by the Council’s insistence that this has to be done for two reasons.Firstly, the Council would have us believe that this has to be done by a matter of fact: that councils have to provide these sites by Law.Secondly, that one of the current sites (no indication whether this was the privately owned site or the official Council site) was overcrowded. This clearly demonstrates that the other one isn’t.It is the Council’s legal obligation to inform local residents that they think may be affected by planning proposals. Not only is the Council attempting to bamboozle the residents of Sutton in regard to providing the sites “by Law”, the Council has also misled the residents – who willbe directly affected by the Kimpton Park site – by stating that we were adequately consulted about the plans and that there was a meeting to which we were invited that took place in our absence.The Council have insisted that there were postcards put through every letterbox making the residents aware of the plans. One resident claiming that this never happened would suggest that the drop wasn't that efficient. Two residents denying they ever received it is acoincidence. A whole neighbourhood, who will be directly and irrevocably affected by this plan, stating that this never happened points to a clear and obvious cover up by the Council. There has been no postcard drop and there has been no consultation to date with theresidents of Ridge Road, Burleigh Road, Poplar Road, Ash Road, Morley Road or Fir Road. I doubt that any residents bordering the A217 or Sutton Common Road were informed by post either.Lastly, I would like to deal with the issue of the Law. I will be brief. Greater London provides 474 pitches for travellers, 456 of which are privately owned. The other 18 pitches are the only pitches provided by local authorities in the Greater London area. SUTTON COUNCILPROVIDES 100% OF THESE PITCHES. In fact, in the whole of the country there are only three local authorities that provide more than Sutton (Salford 30, Bristol 20 and Brighton and Hove 23). There are only 2 County Councils that provide more pitches than Sutton and thoseare Norfolk and Somerset, which are clearly massively rural areas – unlike Sutton. As a matter of record, Sutton Council provide more local authority pitches than Derbyshire, Worcestershire and North Yorkshire put together.

So, while your spokespeople harp on about the requirement by Law to provide these pitches maybe they should be insisting that Croydon, Richmond and Kingston do their bit to alleviate any “overcrowding” issues. Especially considering that not one of them provides a singlelocal authority sponsored pitch… along with every other local authority in the Greater London area.

I await a coherent response to my observations at your earliest convenience.


409 Jeff Boyman 410 Object I strongly object to the proposal to create a travellers site in Sutton. Over a very short time I have seen a major impact in the area by the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe and other areas. Whilst we are not alone in this, I find it incredible that the powers that be seem tothink that local services can support any more.I might add that I see no justification for creating a permanent site for people who consider themselves as "travellers".


410 G Scantori 411 Object I live on Sutton common road and object to the proposed travellers site for the following reasons.I have lived on the road for the last 20 odd years and have noticed the pollution that has increased on my road, due to increased development and additional properties being built.This has resulted in increased heavy vehicles and additional local traffic which in turn creating more pollutants in the air causing bad health.To have this site will bring more traffic and more pollution.The cemetery could also be affected due to people not wanting to go and visit graves which could cause the graves to be left to rack and ruin.If these travellers want to stop travelling and live in a permanent fixed area then let them do what everyone else has to do and buy or rent a home and integrate into the community.This could also have an impact on property prices where potential buyers learn that a site was on their doorstep.I know a lot of residents in chessington, where their is a site off cox lane and all i hear from the local residents is complaints. They have to have a regular Police presence in that area due to incidents of one kind or another, which has been going on for years.I would like to know why there should be a dedicated site to be made available to a particular group of people. When you would not dream of considering putting a group of one nationality together to live, as you would then be labeled as being racist.


411 Ian Harwood 412 Object Regarding the proposed traveller’s site on plot S87 we are not happy for this to go ahead, it will have major impact on local businesses suffering loss of business and as there is already one site in the LBS which is enough so we would appeal strongly against this going ahead. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

412 Joanne Dingvean 413 Object I totally agree with the following statement 1. We do not want a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. We find it disrespectful. Would you buy a loved one a plot right next to a traveller site ???2. We do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move if thisproposal happens. Would they stay in the borough. What about the jobs that they provide for local people would they be lost?3. Extra traffic on the A217 at an already difficult Junction. Two proposals were made for access to the site. Off the Kimpton Park Way way on the Kimpton estate right opposite the road down to Tesco's , or the second option is access right next to the cemetery entrance itself.4. Expected cost quoted in excess of 1 million pounds of which the council has no funding. So who would be paying for this??? Us the residents. We are already facing a hike in our council tax would they do it again or would they cut some other vital service.


413 Kerry Davis 414 Object I have signed the recent petition against the proposed traveller’s site on Kimpton Road as I feel it would cause a great deal of disruption to the local area at a very large cost.It would not benefit the local community nor the council if a traveller site was to be granted.It will affect local house prices, run the risk of losing local businesses and put further pressure on already oversubscribed schools.

How does the council propose to fund the site if the expected cost is quoted in excess of 1 Million pounds when residents have already had to fight for vital services to remain in operation? I predict there would be further costs involved once the site is established such as crimerates could increase meaning extra policing costs. Fly tipping would become an issue meaning extra waste removal costs. Increased traffic meaning increased traffic and road management costs. I also think you have to ask yourself who would be liable for the deprecation oflocal properties?

I have been a resident in Gander Green Lane for nearly 2 years and took careful consideration before moving my young family into the area. It was important to me, as I am sure it is with most families, that my children had access to good schools, clean & safe play areas andhad access to a range of family orientated facilities such as leisure centre’s and children’s centre’s. Before our move we considered various areas including West Ewell / Chessington but we were deterred from relocating there having had such negative feedback from the localresidents on how their local traveller’s sites impact the area.

The local residents have already had to endure years of disruption when industrial estate was being built, we are now started to see some benefits as local business also brings local jobs to the area. The traffic and noise pollution will always remain an issue but by grantingpermission for a traveller’s site this will only increase and cause further issues.

I ask that you carefully consider each of these points and also put yourselves in our shoes, how would you feel if a traveller’s site was permitted on your doorstep?The local residents have voted you in as we believe that you can make a difference to our area, we have put our trust in you to make improvements to our community, not to depreciate the area.


414 Mrs A Hall 415 Object 1,000 extra people in this community will cause a lot of trials and tribulations. If schools are oversubscribed so parents must make lengthy journeys taking their children to various schools, just at a time when children are being urged to walk and so require schools to be close.Doctors' surgeries are struggling to cope as are our hospitals. The ambulance, police and fire brigade all work so hard as it is.All the extra waste to be disposed of. It is all going to cost a great deal of money. To top it all, those 1,000 people are not going to be happy! They will resent the local people and they, in turn, will be resented.The site is far too small for so many to live comfortably! Perhaps an adult gymnasium could be built on the site as there is so much concern regarding obesity.


415 Anonymous 416 Object Urgent! This must not go through. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

416 Kelly Harken 417 Object I recently found out from facebook that the council have planned to open a travellers site just a few minutes from my doorstep and I am AGAINST this.Firstly the people who approve this- how close do you all live?!I have experience of family members living near a travellers site and there are so many problems these sites bring the list goes onRubbish- who will pay for this - why should my council tax fund this?Business- millions of pounds just been spent updating Kimpton Park bringing new businesses to the area and now you plan to open a travellers site on their door stops.New housing - millions of pounds being put into new homes and retail parks in S


418 Miss Rachael Taylor 419 Object I would like to make it clear that I feel that this proposed site is in my opinion an inappropriate location and will affect in a negative manor local retail, schools, doctors, and transport and utility infrastructure. Housing such a large additional number of residents in the area whenthere is already a shortage of school places and doctors surgeries are overloaded is not helpful. Traffic is already a problem and I cannot see it being improved by placing this site here with its large additional number of vehicles.I am also concerned about how this will affect the value of my property. This may seem like an entirely selfish thought, but having only just purchased my first ever property I feel very concerned and would have given serious consideration to buying in a different location had Iknown about this proposed site before hand. I can categorically say that despite currently renting in the area, we were not aware of this proposal until after the consultation meeting had already been held.I hope that you will listen to the genuine concerns of the local residents and conduct further transparent consultation before coming to a decision.


419 David James 420 Object A Gypsy and Traveller site is not suitable for Kimpton Park Way and should NOT be developed as such. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

421 Tarryn Engelbrecht 422 Object It has been brought to my attention that the council is proposing to build a permanent traveller site next to Sutton Cemetery.I would like to find out more about this proposal, will there be any open discussions in the council area to voice concerns and hear more about the proposal?I am worried about the effect this proposal will have on the area value as well as any disruption to the peaceful residential feel of my neighbourhood. I live quite near to the proposed site.Would the community of travellers be paying council tax and looking after their site or is the current site very disruptive and disorderly?There are many unknowns to this proposal and I do think the community would benefit from further communication and insight into this proposal.Thank you for taking the time to read through my concerns and I would appreciate hearing from someone from the council regarding this matter.


422 Mrs Rosemary Paul 423 Object With regard to the proposal of the travellers site on the Kimpton road.

Why choose a site right in the middle of such a built up area, plus1. where will the entrance be on such a busy junction with the amount of lorries already using that road.2. What effect will it have on the cemetery, especially as I believe that ground is for future overflow of the cemetery.3. What about the school children and parents walking to Brookfield school, also the children getting on and off the school bus at the end of the road.4. There must be a more suitable place with more room for the travellers and all their vehicles without causing more congestion on a site already congested enough.I ask you to reconsider this proposal.


24

Page 1005

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response423 Hayley McDonald 424 Object I am writing regarding the proposed Traveler Site at Kimpton Park Way. It was only recently that the proposed site has come to my attention, I have not received anything in the post and I have had to hear about it through the grapevine. The communication about this is

absolutely awful!Please could you provide me with further information? I have great concerns about the possibility of this happening, mainly because I have been a resident of Sutton for 14 years and love living in this area but I have however noticed a massive increase in population over theyears and I wonder how we are going to be able to fit any more people in??It is a big struggle to get a doctors appointment, not only for me but for my babies when they are ill - I almost have to plead with the receptionist because they are so busy and over subscribed. The schools are also completely full and it is another struggle trying to get a place formy children to attend a school in the area.And who will be paying for all of this? What budget will it full in?

I have plenty of other queries regarding this, however, after giving it a lot of thought I would strongly OBJECT to this going ahead and I would like to attend any meetings that are due to take place regarding this issue.


424 Patricia Gray 425 Object I have just come to understand that a traveller site is being proposed at Kimpton Road and that it has been in process for some time.I would like to oppose this on the grounds that Sutton council has not consulted with the local community in the area.


425 Steve McDonald 426 Object I'm writing to raise concerns about the proposed Permanent Traveller Site. My main concerns are that the schools, doctors surgeries and hospitals in the area are already well over subscribed so have concerns about how a sudden increased load would affect these services.I also have my grandad buried in the cemetery next door so wanted to know more about how subtle the new housing estate would be.I've also heard stories, possibly scaremongering, about business already considering moving out of the area and people putting their houses up for sale as a consequence.I don't want to see good businesses and people move out of the area. It's a good area which I don't want to see dismantled out of fear of the possibility of a Traveller site on everyone's doorstep. I think this fear is real and will have long term consequences on good communityspirit.I've written to MP Paul Scully to also raise my concerns.


426 Emma Hawkins 427 Object I am writing on behalf of Condell Ltd ,based on the Kimpton Industrial Estate. We object to the notion of allowing a traveller site here because of the long running chronic congestion on the busy Kimpton Industrial Estate ,which is only going to get worse because of new buildsand the site will add to this. This congestion extends onto the already busy A217 and Tesco traffic. The usage of the site would be better suited as a paying car park for Estate employees and customers , or alternatively something to improve the local area for existing residents.

The instant influx of caravan residents onto already stretched local schools and health services in the Borough will be unfair to Sutton residents.


428 Jenny Williams 429 Object We live on Ridge Road. We find the proposal to make Linear Park Site a permanent site for travelers utterly ridiculous it's unfair on taxpayers people who work hard to pay their mortgages and rent plus council tax! It's also backed into our back garden? Would you considermaking a permanent travellers site at the back of your property? I sincerely think not! We as an household of full time workers and taxpayers are totally against this proposal and it shouldn't be happening in the near future we should leave them at their own devices and travelaround uk and Europe real gypsies do not have permanent sites! Look at Woodmansterne they've been given all that land for nothing!!!


430 Kim Parsons 431 Object I would strongly like to object to the plans for a permanent travellers site in Sutton at Kimpton Park, which I only found out recently from a neighbour.

Although the site is not directly near to my home, I do use the facilities around Kimpton Park vicinity and with the reduced local budget and facilities, this would put an unfair strain on the town in many areas.

This may in a small way be a NIMBY reaction, however as an employee of a government agency in Epsom I have had many interactions with “Travellers”, and am aware of the difficulties which can result from such a site being established. There can be a lack of respect on theirpart for their non traveller neighbours, and so I have concerns about disruption to especially those using the cemetery and the Sutton Life Centre.


431 Kathleen Barnes 432 Object I am opposed to this. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

432 Mr and Mrs BDunleavy

433 Object We would like to register our strong objection to the proposed traveller's site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park.The introduction of 194 permanent hard standing pitches could mean the influx of up to 1000 people into the local community and would put additional pressure on the local infrastructure and resources which are already stretched.Our concerns are that it will affect our community in the following areas:Doctors' Surgeries: Local surgeries are already oversubscribed and waiting times will be longer than ever.Hospitals: Local hospitals are already at breaking point and this influx will be an extra burden.Schools: Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local population. Our local children will not be able to gain a place at the preferred school, which could result in parents having to travel across the borough.Traffic: With the introduction of local business units, traffic in the vicinity has already increased and will just get worse.Waste Disposal: Cuts have already been made to these local services and additional pressures will be put on them to accommodate the influx.Local Infrastructure: The local infrastructure has been encroached upon and this increase will put added pressure in these areas.We believe that the area would be better left as it is. We also understand that there is a long standing agreement that the land in this area belongs to the local community and should not be built on.We cannot express our objection more strongly and hope the council make a pragmatic and sensible decision not to locate the travellers site in Kimpton Park Way.


433 Amanda Edwards 434 Object I would like to register our strong objection to the proposed traveller's site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park.The introduction of 194 permanent hard standing pitches could mean the influx of up to 1000 people into the local community and would put additional pressure on the local infrastructure and resources which are already stretched.My concerns are that it will affect our community in the following areas:Doctors' Surgeries: Local surgeries are already oversubscribed and waiting times will be longer than ever.Hospitals: Local hospitals are already at breaking point and this influx will be an extra burden.Schools: Local schools are already oversubscribed and unable to accommodate the local population. Our local children will not be able to gain a place at the preferred school, which could result in parents having to travel across the borough.Traffic: With the introduction of local business units, traffic in the vicinity has already increased and will just get worse.Waste Disposal: Cuts have already been made to these local services and additional pressures will be put on them to accommodate the influx.Local Infrastructure: The local infrastructure has been encroached upon and this increase will put added pressure in these areas.I believe that the area would be better left as it is. I Also understand that there is a long standing agreement that the land in this area belongs to the local community and should not be built on.I cannot express our objection more strongly and hope the council make a pragmatic and sensible decision not to locate the travellers site in Kimpton Park Way.


435 Mr and Mrs RBroughton

436 Object We object to your plans for Kimpton Park Way to be used for a permanent Travellers Site. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

436 Mr Frank Stafford 437 Object I am a pensioner living along near the site being considered by Sutton Council as a site for travellers and gypsies and as a result I am deeply concerned and worried about the adverse effect that this could have on the immediate neighbourhood.Everybody knows, including Sutton Council, that those people have a very bad reputation (in fact most of them).By their presence in our neighbourhood, they will lower the tone of the area which is at present a nice, quiet peaceful place and also devalue our houses.They are noted for causing anti social behaviour and disruption.They will put further pressure on community services that are already severely stretched. Not only will this site be adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and the trading estate, it will also be close to people's houses (to close for comfort).People will be living in constant fear of being burgled etc etcThis site if approved will cost millions and I believe that the money spent could be put to much better use servicing the local community especially when the council are being forced to save millions and cut back on important services.I appreciate that these people have to live somewhere but due to their reputation I do believe that they should be found somewhere more isolated (if they need it) and not too close to people's houses in residential areas, such as ours.I do hope that this site in our locality will not be established and I plead with Sutton Council not to let it happen in all our interest.


437 Cliff Carter 438 Object I object to the Proposed Travellers Site I Am worried how the Schools will Cope They are oversubscribed today what will they do? 194 far too many than I they are too Many? The community are not prepared for this? How well Doctors Surgeries They are far too long as itstands? Hospitals far worse is at breaking point?


438 Jenny Johnson 439 Object I am writing to object about 194 permanent hard standing pitches. I feel this is far too many for our School,hospitals and council services to cope with. We are already stretched as it is.Further thought needs to be given to the use of that site


439 Michael Crumper 440 Object I am writing in respect of the proposal to put a traveller site in the vicinity of Kimpton Industrial Estate.

I was Chairman of KIPPA for many years, during which the area became a BID. Much has been done to take the place from a sad, tired 1950’s estate to what is or was a little while ago, a vibrant sought after place in which to do business.

The proposal has already had an effect. A building which we have on the market was perfect for a prospective buyer, a good mix of office, storage and parking. They have however pulled out of the purchase for one reason, the possibility of there being a traveller site nearby.

The investment which many people have made and in lots of cases millions, was done in the belief that the London Borough of Sutton believed in business and wanted a successful business park in which there could be growth and employment. Was this a cynical lie? Was thisjust a ploy to get investment and now that this has partly been achieved the Council is happy to turn their back on business, destroy what has been built up and care nothing for the losses on the investments. Never again will business be able to trust the London Borough ofSutton and it will be a blight on the whole borough for decades.

Part of the recent redevelopment of the former Designplan site included the building of an investment for the Borough. That investment has been devalued before it has even been occupied. The Borough is destroying its own investment both in this property and the long-termvalue of the whole Estate. How can on the one hand the Borough determine that the land is now worth a certain inflated value, issuing an instruction to officers that no rent must be agree under a certain value, and on the other destroy its value at the same time by blighting thearea. There is no joined up thinking.

If this goes through the Estate will decline, businesses will move out, buildings will not be refurbished and it will rapidly go back to being an undesirable area. Losses by investors will be significant and the memory of that will be long. The London Borough of Sutton will be a placeNOT to do business in, the investors rule will become ‘anywhere but Sutton’.

Lessons should be learnt from the past and others. Travellers sites and business parks do not mix. Have you spoken to Epsom Borough Council for example about the experiences of the businesses in that locality? You need to be prepared for the reality of the consequences.Policing will be put under severe pressure and the unrest that you will unleash will be tremendous.

Be under no doubt of the serious consequences to the value of the Borough’s investments as well as many other people’s investments, the elimination of Sutton being a place for businesses to exist and the irreversible breakdown in good relations between the businesscommunity and the Borough and the demands on the Police services which will then be made, as well as the bad feeling from all those who own and work in those businesses, many of whom live in the Borough.

Years of work by many, including many in the Borough, will be destroyed if this proposal gets passed.


440 Asta Perry 441 Object I don't agree with travellers site as I got 2 kids who hasn't started school or nursery ( on the waiting list no spaces) . Doctor's appointment never get the same day as it's already too busy . The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

442 Ms Pravina Ellis 443 Object I do not support the option of developing this area as a Gypsy and Traveller site. This land should be retained as MOL and should only be developed in such a way that fulfils its designation as Land Safeguarded For Burial Space or Open Space.* The need to provide accommodation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance and is not a justifiable criterion for de-designation.* If the council were to designate the land as a Gypsy and Traveller site this would remove the possibility of it being returned to open green land in the future* It would also risk potential encroachment on surrounding green space and parks, including Kimpton Linear Park in future


443 G & L Harper 444 Object We strongly object to the proposed travellers' site in Kimpton Park Way.As residents who pay council tax, we cannot see any benefit to use our neighbours in creating a travellers' site so close by. This will, in all probability, result in further devaluing our properties which have already been devalued due to the close proximity of Tesco, McDonalds andthe greatly expanding Kimpton Industrial Estate.Also, the fact that the site will be adjacent to Sutton Cemetery seems to display a total lack of respect to the people visiting and tending the graves of their loved ones.The influx of around 1,000 new residents in one small area is far too many and will put further strain on local schools, doctors, hospitals, emergency services and waste disposal services which are already created stretched.The site could be better used in expanding the local primary school to accommodate the borough's ever growing population, or a leisure centre, or recreational parkland for everyone's enjoyment, and/or perhaps some affordable housing for the borough's first time buyers (butdefinitely not another supermarket of which there are already far too many in this area).


25

Page 1006

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response444 Peter Powell 445 Object Sir, The large site proposed which will possibly involve up to an extra 1000 persons of various ages requiring services such as school places, and extra doctors, nurses,hospital treatment , dental services, etc. This is in addition to the refugee and immigration problem strain

being placed on this island and its infrastructure. Should not the number of sites being proposed be reduced to a more manageable size, and plans implemented forthwith to provide the necessary infrastructure before expanding the population of the borough by such a largeamount. Surely the very fact that by definition the people using these sites are travellers and live their lives on the move the site will not be used as a permanent home or stop by the same persons for long. Making the site become a dumping ground for various amounts of rubbishleft by the previous occupiers and will require constant monitoring for such offences. I trust this will be taken into account when a final decision is taken on this proposal, and am aware that the travellers are in need of consideration like anyone else, but how does this expenditurefit in with the council having to save another £30+ million of their budget? I propose the land is used for a new school or affordable accommodation both of which are needed.


446 Maureen Newcome 447 Object I would like to object for the proposal to put a traveller site opposite the Kimpton Road estate. The biggest objection I have is that I think it is very disrespectful to the families of loved ones in the cemetery alongside this proposed site. I myself have lost my husband in recentyears and although I have a grave at Garth Road I know what it's like to be able to visit and sit in the peace and think of them and remember them. So the thought of travellers almost in the cemetery is alarming to me. The other factor is that I live in Clensham Lane across theroad. I live now alone and I know you don't class all travellers or gypsies as bad the fact is I think we are going to feel a little nervous that this site is so near. The other factor is of course the factory estate which h=has given many people work may have problems which willresult in closures and people losing their jobs. Please accept my letter as an objection to any proposal on this site .


447 Erica Fabiola 448 Object I am writing to you to voice my concerns over the proposal to build a traveller site on land at Kimpton Park Way.We have a happy, peaceful community that needs no more construction in the area. The general risk of flooding in the area is on the increase since the rebuild of Brookfield Primary School & the development of the Kimpton Estate. While efforts have been made to alleviate theissue with introduction of the Pyl Brook Meander & the balancing pond, during periods of rainfall my own garden suffers waterlogging, I am at the top of the hill! Any extra land converted to hard standing will compound this & likely affect many surrounding residents.Since development of the Kimpton estate & the introduction of many new businesses, litter has increased dramatically. I regularly walk alongside Pyl Brook & rear of Brookfield Primary School clearing litter. The introduction of this site I feel would only intensify this issue greatly.This proposal would seriously affect myself & my neighbours as it would be at the bottom of our currently peaceful & secluded gardens amounting to an invasion of our privacy. We have had travellers pitch here before & while they were here illegally they did nothing to minimisetheir effect on the local area i.e. rubbish, vandalism & anti-social behaviour (I personally witnessed from my window one of afore mentioned travellers defecating in the open air). While I have no wish to demonise anyone, my views are based on some experience.The Kimpton Estate itself is not yet rented out to full capacity. This proposal would not be any incentive for new businesses wishing to come to the area, quite the opposite. As I understand it, were this proposal to come about, existing business on the trade park would consideralternative premises. Quite a blow to the growing economy of the borough.Brookfield Primary School will struggle to accommodate the extra capacity required, as will all local schools.Traffic is already an issue in the area. The A217 which is the only logical access, bearing the brunt, frequently very heavily congested with commuters and goods vehicles.Myself & many other residents feel the best use for the land would be to remain as reserved cemetery space which itself will become limited in a relatively short space of time.Please the consider the thoughts, feelings & deeper impact to residents & local business.


448 Terry and MargaretSaunders

449 Object We refer to the above Planning Application in the Sutton 2031 Document and strongly object to the proposal of a Gypsy & Travellers Site on part of Kimpton Linear Park for the following reasons:-Having spent several days reading not just the Sutton 2031 documents and many others on the website along with the government papers from the Department for Communities and Local Government issued in August 2015, we would comment below:-

We refer to Section 13 of the Dept. for Communities and Local Government policy which states :-Local planning authorities should ensure that traveller sites are sustainableeconomically, socially and environmentally. Local planning authoritiesshould, therefore, ensure that their policies:a) promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.This was “buried” within your Sutton 2031 documentation and when the residents of both Sutton North and Stonecot Wards realised what was being proposed - there has been uproar hence petitions etc.. Furthermore, local businesses on the development do not want a sitethere either.b) promote, in collaboration with commissioners of health services, access to appropriate health services.As we are all aware, we do not know yet whether St. Helier Hospital will survive and not only that as residents of Sutton for over 42 years when our G.P. retired in Sutton our family was placed with a surgery in Morden and still are, which is inconvenient and it takes 3 weeks to getan appointment.c) ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.School places in Sutton have become a problem and Primary Schools are being asked to take additional intake. We are aware that Sutton needs at least 1 new High School if not 2 and we personally know of a child going to senior school this September that has been offered aplace in a L.B. Merton school, which is unacceptable.d) provide a settled base that reduces both the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment.There has been several unauthorised encampments on various parts of the borough and we do not believe that having a further site would prevent Gypsies and Travellers, travelling.e) provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development.Whilst, this is mainly relating to the traveller community it has a severe detrimental effect on Air Quality for the local community. Its position by the A 217 (which already has severe Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) levels along with three other roads in the borough and having morevehicles and possibly animals would be catastrophic. Air pollution along the A217 is already bad due to the large Tesco and the Kimpton Industrial Estate. The air pollution is not being managed very well for the residents or children walking to school.f) avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services.This fails on access to the site due to road layout. As a purpose built entrance willhave to be built possibly in Kimpton Way and not through Sutton Cemetery which will cause disruption to the traffic in Alcorn Close for future burials and for those wishing to visit the site of the resting place of their relatives. The traffic on the A217 that travels from Rose Hill toStonecot Hill has to turn right at the lights into Alcorn Close and left into Sutton Common Road and vice versa when travelling from St. Dunstan’s Hill. Drainage, street lighting, gas and electricity services would need to be provided. The road would need to be wide enough toaccommodate caravans, turning points,etc. All 999 services could be affected as this is a very busy industrial estate.g) do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.We are unaware of whether the proposed site would be at risk of flooding as it is at present Metropolitan Open Land part of which is still designated for an extension of Sutton Cemetery.h) reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability.There are not many travellers that do not travel albeit not necessarily towing their caravan behind them ( only those who are on unauthorised sites) but they do travel to do garden work or maintenance works – so that would not have any contribution to sustainability.We would like to remind you the London Borough of Sutton’s Corporate Plan for 2014/15-2018/19 vision of “Building a community in which all can take part and take pride” is underpinned by the following corporate priorities:An Open Council - Working collaboratively ensuring we involve and listen to residents: and helpingindividuals and communities to work together and help themselves.A Green Council - Making Sutton more attractive and sustainable to build our reputation as a green borough.A Fair Council - Building safe, strong and healthy communities and increasing economic growth and investment in Sutton making it a place of choice to live and work.A Smart CouncilWe therefore do not believe along with many other residents that this is the area where a Gypsy & Travellers Site should be placed.


450 J. Maniscalchi 451 Object As a resident of Sutton, I was surprised to hear about the proposed Traveller’s site. Sadly what was more surprising was that I had received nothing in the post from the planning policy of the London Borough, I had been informed from a friend. Had my friend not of mentioned it, Ican only assume everyone’s silence would of gone forward as “ nobody complained” and the Traveller’s site would be built!

I am not in favour of the proposal. I have lived and worked in Sutton for over 28 years.

My concerns are:

1. The resources in the area are already being stretched for example our , Doctors, Hospitals and our schools.

2. What will the traveller’s contribution to Sutton and the area be? Would they be expected to pay a form of tax? Rent? And if not, why are they being exempt?

3.Will they be offered benefits of any kind? And if yes, would this come out of the budget for the benefits others in the area are needing?

4.Will this in anyway affect residents council tax, will it go up?


452 Lesley Wilson 453 Object I write further to the Sutton Local Plan and Consultation into Travellers' site in Alcorn Close, and confirm that I strongly object to such a plan.I am very upset that the Consultation is identifying this site for future use, should it become needed, for the Travellers’ Community. I strongly oppose this for the following reasons:• The site is right next to a Cemetery. I think to use such a site would be disrespectful.• Local companies, and the Council, made it possible to have the Kimpton Park Way which has given residents a very pleasant environment and Walkway which many people enjoy. My family often have leisurely walks along there as well as many others with families too.Children also cycle to school along there. I envisage that with a Travellers site near to this area would cause nuisance, anti social behaviour, and environmental health problems, such as rubbish not being disposed of properly around the site. I certainly do not think that thiswould be fair for the local residents or to the local companies which rely on customers and visitors.• Sutton already has two existing traveller/gypsy sites.• I understand that that the Council do not necessarily need to provide more land since the Government definition changed.If you intend to make changes in Sutton, please make 'good' changes for the enjoyment of those who pay their Community Tax.


453 Darran Current 454 Object I live in Anderson Close and wish to formally object to the proposed traveller’s site at kimpton road on behalf of myself and my family for the reasons listed below:The lack of notification is a clear violation of due process, i know for a fact that in my area we have not had any notification of this proposal from the council.We do not want a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. We find it disrespectful.We do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move if thisproposal happens. Would they stay in the borough. What about the jobs that they provide for local people,they will be lost?Extra traffic on the A217 at an already difficult Junction.Expected cost quoted in excess of 1 million pounds of which the council has no funding. So who would be paying for this??? Us the residents. We are already facing a hike in our council tax, will you do it again or will there be a cut to some other vital serviceSchool places are already hard to secure due to oversubscription, and they are already unable accommodate the local populous, Even more of our children will now suffer not being able to gain a place at their desired school of choice.Doctors Surgeries and appointment waiting times are far too long as it stands, these will increase.Hospitals are even worse than the doctors, this is a service already at breaking point in this areaThe 999 services, Police, ambulance and fire brigade are overstretched an influx of unto 1000 more people will create major problems with the servicesWaste disposal cuts have already been made, with these services, more will be coming in because of the greater number of people the council will need to serve.There are now over 4000 signatures on a petition on change.org:


454 Polly Castelo 455 Object I want to add my name to the growing list of people who do not want to see this land used for a gipsy/traveller site.I think it's wholly inappropriate to locate such a site next to a cemetery, and would prefer it to be left as open land or an extension of the cemetery.I would also like to point out how bad the traffic is currently at rush hour in this area, and don't think this would help at all.I will leaflet and campaign against this in my street, and will ask everyone I know to do likewise.I urge you to reconsider. I will attend the meeting at Sutton Life Centre on April 9th to see if there is any more I can do.


456 Brian Linch 457 Object I would just like to say that I am totally amazed that the council would even consider putting a Gypsy/Travellers site next to a cemetery and a business park. We have had our company here for over 25 years and we have had to put up with a lot of trouble over that time but latelythis seems to have subsided by a very large amount but we can only imagine what trouble we will have to endure if this site is passed and would certainly consider moving our premises to a safer industrial park if this is the case, along with many other companies we would hope.


457 Leon Giddings 458 Object I am a manager of an established electrical wholesalers of 20+ years on the Kimpton ind est. We have recently moved to a new unit on Kimpton parkway with a heavy investment which is very close to the proposed gypsy site.This I feel will be very bad for business not just for myself but all business local to this. I think that the council need to look at the bigger picture of this proposal how it could have a massive impact on business moving away from this surrounding area of this ludicrous idea. Ourcustomers whom are mainly electrician are concerned about their vans broken into having recently experiences of this matter.If people's views are not valued and overseen. I for one business will have to invest heavily in extra security who is going to pay for this ?


458 Mr and Mrs J SPhilpott Clark

459 Object We are emailing to object against the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site near to Kimpton Industrial Park in Sutton, Surrey.We moved into our business unit a year ago and have found it to be an extremely busy area traffic wise. The influx of vehicles/people that you are proposing to this already busy area would be detrimental to our business – particularly as we rely on deliveries (in and out). If wehad known such a proposal was being made we would have thought twice about buying the business unit we purchased. For your information all of our employees reside in Sutton and we are actively looking to take on 1 or 2 apprentices/school leavers so we are loyal to thecommunity of Sutton.We also live in the area and are strongly opposed to this area of land being used as proposed so close to a cemetery which should be a quiet/tranquil area for people to visit. Wasn't the designated piece of land ‘safeguarded for burial space?’ Also the impact on localschools/doctors would not be good – as both are already under pressure to meet demands. We know from experience how hard it is to get appointments for our doctors in Sutton.We would like an acknowledgement that our objection has been received.


26

Page 1007

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response459 D R Packham 460 Object I would like to very strongly voice my opposition to the plans to put a travellers site behind the Sutton Cemetery.I believe that to do so could only have an adversary

effect on visits to the cemetery and cause untold problems for funeral services.I feel certain that to go ahead with these plans would have a very detrimental effect on businesses in that area as people will be very reluctant to want to pass the site.The site will also no doubt greatly increase traffic problems in the area and most certainly result in decreasingproperty values for the area..


460 Sharon and Gary,Cherelle and Glynnand Susan and Martin

461 Object We all have serious concerns regarding the Planned Travellers Site at Linear ParkBecause of the Environmental ImpactServicesPower – Water – Electricity GasRubbish CollectionHouse prices in the areaWill they be paying council tax, will our properties be evaluated for our own council tax BandWe do not feel there is enough information being shared.Can you provide us with details of the full application and intention


462 Mr and Mrs Deacon 463 Object We (both myself and my husband) must protest wholeheartedly at your decision to construct a travellers site near to a cemetery.It is "NOT RIGHT" it is disrespectful to say the least and as has been quoted by many of my neighbours if they are travellers then they should keep on travelling not setting down roots that other taxpayers provide. They would be an added burden to the borough and that is justthe start I am sure!! The list of things against this project are numerous and we do not want this on our doorstep.


463 Lucy Emberson 464 Object AGAINST.I am absolutely 100% AGAINST using the land to place travellers. Do they pay tax? I say that first out of frustration and annoyance as a person who pays taxes and works from a family who has always paid taxes and worked.On the bigger scale though, there will be more traffic hence more pollution. Why not try to salvage any nature we have and encourage a nature reserve? It will produce way too much rubbish. And who will clean up this mess that is created? Tax payers. Yes I've come back to thetax part again out of frustration.I think Sutton is and continuing to be going down a slippery slope with all these huge planning and property developments. Some good I'm sure. But let's not let this one slide.


464 Jasminder and DarrenKenneally

465 Object We object to the proposed permanent travellers' site on the land north of Kimpton Park Way because:this will increase traffic around an already busy areathe land is supposed to be a peaceful area in a cemeterylocal schools, medical services and emergency services will not be able to accommodate the extra people


465 J A Edwards 466 Object Please consider this e-mail as my formal objection to the above proposal.

I strongly object to the site for a number of reasons - mainly the increased drain on our local resources.

Hospitals, doctors surgeries, school places, waste disposal, emergency services, policing and traffic flow will all be negatively impacted. Most of these are already at uncomfortable levels.

I feel that the land available could be put to a better use to improve the standard of living for local residents instead of making it much worse.


466 Anonymous 467 Object As a longstanding resident of Hurstcourt Road, I wish to object to plans for a permanent Travellers site near Kimpton Park Way. I feel the site could be better used to service the local community and hope that the plans are rejected. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

468 Mr P A W Lloyd andMrs C Lloyd

469 Object I wish to register my objection to the above proposed site and list the following points:1. Relatives of deceased persons who have their loved ones interred or their ashes scattered within Sutton Cemetery grounds will be highly distressed at such a site being constructed within this area as it would appear highly disrespectful!!2. There is already enough traffic within this area without causing more disruption.3. With the outcry for more purpose-built homes within the country and the lack of them in this borough, surely this must be a priority with reference to the very high cost of homes to enable young persons to buy or rent a property.4. I also would like to point out that great crested newts live in the stream surrounding the area, which, of course, is a protected creature and due consideration must be given to their habitat.5. These sites in some areas are not very tidy which shows officials do not like visiting sites to check any abuses.6. What on earth makes you propose such a site in such a highly populated residential and commercial areas!!


470 Mrs P Waterhouse 471 Object Why are Sutton Council proposing new Travellers site(s) ?The Government’s new planning policy document for Gypsies and Travellers, dated August 2015, redefines 'traveller' in planning policy to exclude those who no longer travel permanently, meaning that where someone has given up travelling permanently they should be treatedno differently from the settled population.This new definition therefore reduces the need for councils to provide new sites, as individuals wishing to settle into the community would no longer be ‘travellers’ and would therefore qualify for council housing, however Sutton Council seem to be operating in direct opposition tothis new requirement.Extract from Sutton Council’s 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 soovercrowded, new site(s) are needed regardless.” Source - p.72 Sutton Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options document.There does however seem to be a contradiction on the council's behalf as in the Sutton Guardian dated 17th March 2016. Page 17 article from Councillor Jayne McCoy entitled “No need for concern over site” ….para 5 “The council has also noted a local trend that thosetravellers wishing to settle into permanent accommodation have happily accepted traditional housing in the absence of fixed caravan sites. Indeed many members of the travelling community are already living amongst us as neighbours and friends.”As the above statement identifies this as the local trend, then if other members of this travelling community should wish to settle permanently, surely they too should be offered the same opportunity of housing thus fulfilling the government requirement of not being treated anydifferently from the settled population.

One proposed site off Kimpton Park Way is situated within - Large, well established and sprawling Kimpton Park Industrial Estate which also encompasses ….

• The Parkway Trading estate (a modern development of 20 warehouse units of various sizes),• Sutton Council’s Reuse (Refuse) & Recycling Centre, Open Monday to Saturday from 9:00 to 17:00, Sunday 9:00 to 14:00,Public Holidays 9:00 to 17:00• Tesco Extra 24Hours Sutton Cheam. Oldfield’s Road. Providing parking for over 500 vehicles.

This is an area containing a large number of warehouses, industrial units, retail outlets, storage facilities and the extremely well used refuse and recycling centre. Due to the footprint of this busy estate, the roads service the businesses around the clock, attracting a large amountof vehicular traffic ranging from large articulated delivery lorries, numerous trade vehicles, cars & motor vehicles with trailers. The majority of this vehicular traffic accesses Kimpton Park Way directly from Oldfield’s Road, thus journeying directly in close proximity to the proposedtraveller’s site.

Why would Sutton Council even consider the proposed site at Kimpton Park Way to be appropriate for a residential development ?

This is a well utilized industrial/retail area and is therefore not ideally situated to being a residential site, the quality of life for the occupants would be continually disrupted by vehicular traffic and other continual associated noise. It would not encourage them to settle in thecommunity as they would be isolated, so the statement from councillor McCoy about soon becoming friends and neighbours … would not be conceivable. The only neighbours they would have are ones that have passed away, as the proposed site borders the large cemetery.

The other access route suggested to this proposed site is from Alcorn Close, the road leading to the cemetery. Majority of this road is one way, traffic feeds by a left turn off the busy A217 Oldfields Road. It cuts the corner and re-joins the B279 by way of a left turn headingtowards Morden. If a right turn onto the B279 heading towards Sutton was encouraged it would put vehicles in the path of traffic from the right and would encourage traffic to cross into the queue by traffic lights, complicating and blocking an already busy junction. After all thetraffic management has been organised to ensure a continual movement at the busy traffic lights where the B279 crosses the A217. Again hardly an ideal situation as not only is it already a congested junction, but not easy for the individuals to get to/from their proposed place ofresidence either.

The issues remains quite clear,

1. Sutton Council needs to revisit this proposal.2. Sutton Council needs to take heed of the wording of the Government's new planning policy.3. Sutton Council should be looking to transfer travellers into permanent accommodation, not try to relocate them to inappropriate areas or fixed /makeshift caravan sites.4. Sutton Council advises they do not have the suggested financial requirement of one million pounds in place at present for this proposed site. This is a sizeable amount and would be better spent on providing more council housing and amenities for the whole community…that would after all be a better way forward, and a much better use of public money.

I therefore advise that I am against Sutton Council's proposal to identify any new Travellers Sites, and specifically against the proposed site at Kimpton Park Way.


472 Mary Crane 473 Object In response to the consultation meeting which I attended on 16th March, I wish to register my views in opposition. Incidentally, I was totally unaware that a Travellers Site was being discussed until a neighbour informed me at 4.15 pm.1. The site in such close proximity to the cemetery would be inconsiderate and possibly offensive to a variety of people and access via Alcorn Close unacceptable.2. Properties in the surrounding area may be devalued and make it difficult in the future to sell and deter prospective buyers from considering the locations.3. Extra school places needed would cause even more difficulties for surrounding schools.4. Appointments at doctor's surgeries and at St Helier Hospital are already overloaded and even more families needing their services would be a disadvantage to everybody.5. Increased traffic would cause even longer queues at the traffic lights on the A217 and at the entry to and exit from it.6. The new road leading to the recycling "dump" and businesses on the Industrial Site and the new pathway along the right hand side has been a welcome asset to the area and any suggestion to change it for access to the Traveller Site would be a retrograde step I think.


476 Mr & Mrs J Blackwell,M Saunders, R North,G Cook, D Wileman,P Burgard, E JBurgard, A Baker, H &A Clark, PTreadaway, TSummers & MSummers, B Jones, CKeene, K & W Turner,J Keane, Mr & MrsTaylor, J Bowdon, KBlackwell, T Allatt, AAllatt

477 Object We wish to object to the proposal that the site located on the land north of Kimpton Park Way be turned over for use as a permanent Travellers' site.The proposed 194 hard standing pitches which would result in an influx of up to a thousand people would, we believe, adversely affect the area and put further pressure on already overstretched local services.The borough's schools, hospitals, doctors' surgeries, clinics, emergency services and waste disposal facilities are all at breaking point already. The proposed further substantial inflow of people would reduce even more the services these agencies will be required to deliver aswell as necessitating increases in the Poll/Council tax charges to existing borough residents.We believe very firmly that this land could be put to far better and much more productive use as providing accommodation for, say, serving servicemen/women serving their country. Alternatively, affordable accommodation could be provided for elderly people within our boroughwho are finding it difficult to purchase or rent housing with the London Borough of Sutton, one of the dearest in London.


477 Miss J L Lebby 478 Object I would like my objection against the proposed travellers site on Kimpton park way, noted.I live in just up the road from area.I believe that the site would cause a strain on already stretched services of the borough, including schools, doctors, refuse collection/waste and healthcare.In addition I am very concerned about the impact on the area that has had a lot of rejuvenation inc the new industrial estate businesses, the life centre and Tesco cheam park. I believe the site would, just by the majority perception, cause house prices in the area to decline.I understand the duty to provide such a site and that travellers need a base, but I strongly believe that the Kimpton park way is in no way a suitable area.I feel it would be better used for further industrial development, bringing big name business to the area, or new residential homes for key workers due to good transport links into London.


479 Ann Lebby 480 Object I wish to register my objection to the proposed travellers site on land north of Kimpton Park Way, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery.Local schools are already oversubscribed and doctors and hospitals already have waiting times for appointments which are far too long. An influx of up to 1000 people is too much for the community, the cemetery could well become a playground for the children of the travellerswhich is disrespectful to those buried there and relatives who wish to visit in peace and quiet.I urge the council to reconsider this proposal and listen to the weight of objection from the local populous.


27

Page 1008

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response481 Sheena Peckham 482 Object I am writing to strongly object to Sutton council’s proposal to use this land as a travellers site for 194 permanent hard standing pitches.

Sutton is already at breaking point when it comes to our local services which have been stretched to the limit in recent years.We are currently watching as new housing developments are erected at Sutton Green and the old gas works.Our schools are already oversubscribed; our doctor’s surgeries have ridiculous waiting times for appointments; our local hospital, St Helier, is in all sorts of trouble with closure of this and that still threatening; waste disposal has been badly affected by cuts.So to propose that even more people, with all their everyday needs – possibly up to 1,000 I believe – should be housed on this traveller’s site, would be utterly disastrous for our borough and the standard of living of its current residents.I have lived in this borough for over 35 years and watched helplessly as life for me and my family has deteriorated. Services and amenities have been eroded year on year and a further influx of people will only exacerbate the situation.Please do not go ahead with this proposal to make residents’ lives even more miserable.


482 Peter Edney 483 Object I strongly object to the proposed travellers site in Kimpton Park way, the site is too near tescos and Sutton cemetery, the area cannot cope with 1000 extra inhabitants ie litter transport schooling and policing. am I to assume that not one Sutton councillor lives anywherenear the proposed site.


483 Anil Singh 484 Object We the residents of Oldfields Road Sutton are objecting against the Proposed Travellers Site on the site located north of Kimpton Park Way. We have grave concerns about how our local resources will cope with such an influx which is already stretched to the breaking point. Wedo not want our child to suffer and not being able to gain a place at his desired school of choice because of more influx of children in school catchment area. We are already experiencing the waiting times for appointments for Doctors surgeries and the way cuts have been madein waste disposal we wonder what will happen if such a huge influx of people are done without proper thought and planning.We will request you to kindly consider the above points before rushing to such decision which might be detrimental to the development of the area and the entire council as a whole.


489 Hayley Evans 490 Object I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed permanent travellers site at the Kimpton industrial ground in the 2031 plans for Sutton.Below I have bullet pointed my main concerns,- It is unacceptable that funding should be given a permanent travellers site, when the priority should lie with existing members of the community in Sutton. Housing should be provided for vulnerable people such as those with mental and physical disabilities and the elderly as amatter of priority- The traffic is already bad in this area, especially in rush hour and the school run. Not only will this cause chaos and potential gridlock on the roads, it will make it increasingly dangerous for other road users, pedestrians and those attending the local schools.- The proposed site is situated next to a cemetery. This location is disrespectful to those buried there and their loved ones. The increased noise, upheaval and commotion that comes with any residential area will not make for calm, peaceful and respectful resting place.- Schools are already oversubscribed for secondary and primary places. The influx of travellers onto the settlement will only increase number of places needed further. The council should be aiming to meet the needs of current residents, not introducing new residents, when theneed for local amenities is not currently met. This location could be better used as a school, to go towards solving this problem.- GP practices in this area are already under strain, the influx of a whole community would not only make wait times worse. But this would lead to failure to diagnose and therefore an increased pressure on our NHS.- Businesses based in Sutton or looking to start up in Sutton, are likely to move elsewhere. This will incur jobs losses and affect infrastructure in the town. Which will lead to properties in the area losing their value.- Finally, there are many other uses that will be far more beneficial to the existing residents of Sutton. For example primary and secondary schools, medical facilities and housing for the vulnerable.There is no benefit to the existing members of the community in Sutton, which should be the priority of the council. 2031 is about making Sutton better and a desirable place to live, for the reasons above this contradicts that sentiment.


490 Alison Fincham 491 Object I am writing this email to express my concerns at the use of plot S87 to be used as a travellers site . I fully understand these people require a place to live as much as anybody else but feel this is an inappropriate site for several reasons .Firstly I do not feel our emergency services would be able to cope with such a large influx on our already increasing community . It would also cause doctors to try and increase their patient listing & this would cause even longer waiting times for appointments .Secondly , schools would be a major concern as there is already insufficient spaces for children who already live within our borough as they all hold very good reputations and places are much sort after .Thirdly Kimpton Trading estate is growing and increasing in businesses , and now the public as well as traders are using these services . It leads me to wonder how many current businesses will look at closing and moving and new businesses will not consider opening due to atravellers site at the top of the road . Thus removing revenue from Sutton . This trading estate is very useful as there is a vast variety of stores and servicesI also feel it is extremely inappropriate being placed next to a cemetery where so many families have loved ones buried and visit regularly to help deal with the loss they have endured . They may not feel able to visit as regularly which will be very distressing and cause them tofeel they have lost their loved ones all over again .I was also under the assumption that the current building work at the bottom of Sutton was to improve the area and feel that this is now one step forward and six backwards if this plot is used for a travellers site . All the new building work will also be adding to the community andwill need spaces at doctors , schools etc .


491 Mark Rote 492 Object I wish to object to the proposed traveller site you have named as S87 Land north of Kimpton Park Way in the strongest terms. I was present at the Sutton Life Centre for the presentation by your team.Locating the site there will:* Cause an increase in commercial vehicles entering and leaving the site at all hours* Increased risk of traffic incident as large slow moving vehicles negotiate the site on a junction of one of the major arteries in the area. (A217)* The depth of feeling was clear in the meeting against the proposal, hence this move would not help build an integrated harmonious community,surely the council's aim. We heard first hand of apostman's difficulties of deliveries on similar site - no pitch numbers, dogs etc* Not enhance the commercial environment (jobs etc) in area or help further take up of the Kimpton industrial site and Sutton Life Centre.* Not future proof the burial capacity in the area, at a time when close on 2000dwellings are being built in and around Sutton Town Centre.* See the loss of a rare thing - a quiet, peaceful area in an urban environment.I reject the argument in the presentation given of a site more remote site expanding uncontrollably. If expansion is not lawful then the law should be enforceable.Be sure to anomomise any personal data in this communication before usingfurther.Also note the intended leaflet drop to publicise the presentation hadnot been delivered to most of the locals present at the presentation.


492 Angela Wrate 493 Object I am writing as an ex member of sutton who was born and educated in the area now living in sussex.Why was i not informed about the proposal of the travelers site as i have a son who will always be a resident of sutton, as he is in the sutton cemetery for ever ,along with others,Deceased neighbours ie the people that reside in the cemetery who have all paid to be there ,after all it is not free. and also my relatives who are resting for eternity in the cemetery and have no voice.I shall also speak on their behalf and possibly relatives who also have no idea of sutton council's disrespectable plan's which they have chosen not to disclose to relatives who have deeds for their loved one's who are under the banner of sutton council and have no clue as towhat is happening as they were interned without the recent infrastructure ,changes that have and are taken place and is about to alter the cemetery, forever its frontage the peace and tranquility and infrastructure on the roads surrounding the area will dramatically cause trafficand disruption in all area's .Crime etc may also be on the increase and possibly tension which in fairness could also be avoided by placing travellers in the more rural areas which i believe they prefer .Why on earth would travellers from the beddington mitcham area want to live next door to a cemetery ,the area is already overcrowded they should be given somewhere like the downs ie banstead sutton areas for consideration and not on the kimpton road site ,most travellersare not from sutton they have more links i believe with beddington mitcham and wallington.Travellers have superstitious ideas and sutton council should be looking at this area to house them in the right spot ,this not being the ideal place .I was not informed and i hold deeds for my son and ourselves as we own a plot for the future, i do not want this where i am to be resting for eternity.it is no good just posting on the cemetery gates you should have researched and informed the people concerned as we are all on the register i feel this has been dealt with in a shoddy way and it is a disgrace on the dead and the people that live and work in this area and on thetravellers themselves .the Roads leading into the cemetery are ridiculous and it is a nightmare to get along sutton common road because of the Changes .if this was to go ahead perhaps very large compensation should be paid to people who have relatives in the cemetery.and the policing etc fundingmay also have an impact .One day you may have a resting place that some bureaucrat will want to change i just hope you have a relative that loves and cares for you like i do for my son and my family and they stand up and fight for what's right ,this site or the changes to cemetery and area's concernedshould not go ahead .Hopefully this will be read .i await the outcome


493 D Fincham 494 Object I am writing this email to express my concerns at the use of plot S87 to be used as a travellers site . I fully understand these people require a place to live as much as anybody else but feel this is an inappropriate site for several reasons .Firstly I do not feel our emergency services would be able to cope with such a large influx on our already increasing community . It would also cause doctors to try and increase their patient listing & this would cause even longer waiting times for appointments .Secondly , schools would be a major concern as there is already insufficient spaces for children who already live within our borough as they all hold very good reputations and places are much sort after .Thirdly Kimpton Trading estate is growing and increasing in businesses , and now the public as well as traders are using these services . It leads me to wonder how many current businesses will look at closing and moving and new businesses will not consider opening due to atravellers site at the top of the road . Thus removing revenue from Sutton . This trading estate is very useful as there is a vast variety of stores and servicesI also feel it is extremely inappropriate being placed next to a cemetery where so many families have loved ones buried and visit regularly to help deal with the loss they have endured . They may not feel able to visit as regularly which will be very distressing and cause them tofeel they have lost their loved ones all over again .I was also under the assumption that the current building work at the bottom of Sutton was to improve the area and feel that this is now one step forward and six backwards if this plot is used for a travellers site . All the new building work will also be adding to the community andwill need spaces at doctors , schools etc .


494 B L Emery 495 Object I am strongly against the proposal to put a travellers site at Kimpton Park Way, I believe this is highly disrespectful placing a traveller site on burial land and right next to the cemetery. I feel the Council is not putting current residents of the area's needs first and have been sneakyin the consultation process of this proposal. The building of this traveller site will cause disruption to the local area including increased traffic and harm to local businesses. I don't believe the site will be managed effectively as has been shown with other sites within the boroughwhere there has been overcrowding and poor management by the Council. I feel there will be an increase in rubbish and litter around the site and problems for current residents with schooling places for children. The Council should listen to local residents and taxpayers concernon this proposal and invest the money to benefit current residents.


28

Page 1009

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response496 Marion Ellen 497 Object We wish to OBJECT to the proposed use of the location on the land north of Kimpton Park Way for a Gypsy and Traveller site for the following reasons:

1. Jeopardising the Viability of Kimpton Park Trading EstateIn the Sutton Local Plan, the Kimpton Park Trading Estate is described as a ‘strategic’ site. Any decision to locate a Gipsy and Traveller Site close to the estate is likely to have a SEVERE ADVERSE impact on the viability of the estate. Whether based on hard facts or hearsay, inevaluating proposed locations for their premises, new businesses are likely to view such a site in close proximity as a ‘negative’ factor and a potential threat to their business. Given the option of various sites around London, they will choose to locate their business elsewhere,thereby depriving the whole Sutton Borough of valuable revenue income and much needed jobs. Amongst those commercial and retail businesses already located on the estate, a large number of premises contain high value items of machinery and stock, both inside and in their open aircompounds. With any increase in criminal and/or anti-social behaviour that they experience, they are likely to review their business plans and decide to relocate to a more ‘secure’ environment, taking with them local jobs and revenue for the borough. Given that there is pressureto build more homes in Sutton to accommodate the increasing population, this MUST go hand-in-hand with trying to increase the locally available jobs to support the residents. Siting this type of accommodation close to a trading estate could be counter to the overall long-termneeds of the Borough.2. Adverse Impact on Traffic at Major Junctions and Local roads2.1. Providing Safe AccessThe land indicated on the plan does not currently have any direct access other than through the main entrance to Sutton Cemetery in Alcorn Close. Due to the site’s topography ie sloping site, at high level above Kimpton Park Way and the A217 Oldfields Road, providing anyaccess road that does not impact on safety and congestion would be difficult. It would be UNSAFE to provide direct access to/from the A217 unless a whole new traffic controlled junction was installed. If provided on Kimpton Park Way, it would be too close to the main A217junction. This is already busy with traffic from the superstore, commercial and industrial units and the public using the Reuse & Recycling Centre. An access via Alcorn Close would have to be kept separate from that of the Cemetery. Given the narrow approach/entrance, itwould seem that this would require the removal of existing buildings, including Cemetery staff accommodation and storage buildings. However, such access would also affect the access and egress to the Cemetery for members of the public and funeral processions, with thepotential for disruption causing distress at an already difficult time.The extra traffic caused is also likely to cause disturbance to the properties along Alcorn Close and people using the Sutton Life Centre.2.2. Impact on Traffic CongestionThe junction of the A217 Oldfields Road and B279 Sutton Common Road is a busy, complex junction. At certain times of the day, the traffic queue stretches back as far as the mini-roundabout at Ridge Road/Forest Road. Providing access to the site via Alcorn Close wouldSIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE the VOLUME of traffic using this junction and thus further INCREASE the already unacceptable CONGESTION, especially for local residents who have no choice about using the junction.2.3. Impact on Traffic CongestionFurther congestion would also be caused by the increased use of the Alcorn Close junction itself. Vehicles approaching from north and south both have to use the ‘dog-leg’ via Alcorn Close and then turn left into Sutton Common Road to travel towards Stonecot Hill.CURRENTLY very FEW vehicles NEED to TURN RIGHT out of Alcorn Close ie the occasional funeral procession, cemetery visitor and/or Alcorn Close residents. Likewise, vehicles wishing to visit the cemetery, etc, approaching on the B279 from Stonecot Hill need to turn rightat the main A217/B279 junction, and then turn right again into the dog-leg section of Alcorn Close. (Both controlled by traffic lights.) In normal circumstances, these are not major issues as the volume and type of traffic is insignificant and way and letting the procession pass.However, there would be a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in the NUMBER of vehicles NEEDING to negotiate this junction, at all times of the day, in ways that will cause ADDITIONAL CONGESTION for the whole junction complex. Traveller Site vehicles will want to TURN RIGHTout of Alcorn Close. By nature of the junction, they will inevitably block any traffic from travelling along the B279 and also vehicles waiting behind wishing to join the B279. This is likely to cause a backlog of traffic on the A217 waiting to turn into Alcorn Close from both directions.2.4. Impact on Surrounding Residential RoadsAny option of making the exit to Alcorn Close onto the B279 Sutton Common Road a ‘Turn Left Only’ junction is NOT ACCEPTABLE and feasible given the IMPACT on surrounding RESIDENTIAL ROADS. Any vehicle prohibited from turning right is likely to drive around theadjacent side roads ie Sherborne and Barrington Roads and turn right onto the Sutton Common Road to approach the A217 junction. The roads are residential and are not fit to take any increased traffic, especially vehicles of a larger nature such as those generally used by thetraveller community eg lorries and caravans. Increased use of these roads by non-residents will have a considerable ADVERSE IMPACT on noise and air pollution for residents together with an increased SAFETY RISK ie we already experience unsafe speeding along the roadand around the blind corners by non-residents.3. Security Concerns3.1. For Local ResidentsWhilst one needs to treat people as individuals, there is a general consensus amongst most people that being close to a Traveller site can have a negative impact on one's environment, be that noise, waste dumping and an increased vulnerability to antisocial and/or criminalactivity. There is no mention in the Local Plan that there are a LARGE NUMBER of RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS that back onto the Sutton Cemetery site. Providing adequate security for Sutton Cemetery itself needs to be assessed. Consideration should also be given to thepotential INCREASE in VULNERABILITY of surrounding residential properties, some of which have rear access ways and garages – already vulnerable to break-ins and rubbish dumping. Any increases of such incidents will lead to suspicion of the culprits but, with the reductionin police recourses, any recovery of property and/or convictions are unlikely.3.2. For Reuse and Recycling CentreGiven the well known custom by the Travelling Community of acquiring scrap items, there is a potential for people queuing for the RRC facility to be approached for any materials that they may be taking to the centre. Some people may find this intimidating. Similarly, RRC facilityitself may prove a magnet for people wishing to acquire items for re-sale.4. Impact on Sutton Cemetery4.1. Potential for Distress to the Bereaved.The proposed Kimpton Park Way site is attached to the existing Sutton Cemetery. The bereaved visit cemeteries for peaceful contemplation and remembrance of their loved ones. Having a traveller site next door and, with adjacent access, is likely to lead to intrusive noise, airpollution, debris, obstruction of funeral corteges, etc and thereby cause UNWARRANTED DISTRESS for the BEREAVED and other visitors to the Cemetery.4.2. Loss of Burial SpaceVarious media reports have already highlighted that there is insufficient burial land in the London area. Given the ever increasing ethnic mix of the borough, comprising a number of religions/faiths, including Islamic, where cremation is unacceptable, proportionately more burialspace will be required in the future to serve the needs of those communities. Some land within the Cemetery would be lost in providing access to the Gypsy and Traveller Site and relocating cemetery facilities. If there is a need to use the land, it would be better to RETAIN THISENTIRE SITE FOR BURIAL SPACE and increase capacity at the existing Sutton Cemetery. (If the land is not deemed suitable for below ground burial, consideration should be given to providing aboveground burial facilities as commonly used in many other places such as Florida and Louisiana inthe USA.)5. Impact on Local SchoolsThe local Junior and Senior schools, closest to this site, are known to be already struggling to accommodate the increasing numbers of pupils and serve their diverse needs. Consideration must be taken as to whether these schools could cope with the impact of having another‘group’ of pupils ie transient pupils, who will have been taught at various different schools through their lives, and therefore have varying skill sets at their respective ages. Additional resources would be required to facilitate the needs of these pupils.6. Site Topography and Overall CostsThe proposed site has a variable and significant gradient and will require extensive landscaping to provide the required level hardstandings together with access roadways and associated land drainage and services. As indicated above, a new access road and entrance will needto be provided which does not have any adverse effect on the current Cemetery operations. To provide such access, existing cemetery buildings would need to be demolished and rebuilt or relocated elsewhere in the Cemetery, thereby incurring additional costs.The overall costsinvolved in making this site suitable for the Travellers’ needs and providing appropriate security measures for Sutton Cemetery is likely to incur SIGNIFICANT and DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS compared to other sites with more suitable topography. Overall, the location of aGypsy and Traveller Site, adjacent to a Cemetery and a strategic Trading Estate is a totally unsuitable and unsatisfactory proposal and would have an Undue Adverse Impact On The Local Environment and local residents. Most importantly, it would jeopardise the futureeconomic prospects of the entire London Borough of Sutton. We would urge the council to consider alternative sites in less densely populated residential and/or industrial areas of the Borough where the impact would be less severe.


500 Samantha Orme 501 Object I write with regards to the proposed traveller's site in Sutton, plot S87.After finding out about the plans for a proposed traveller site near the cemetery and the Kimpton Industrial Estate, I was very disappointed not to have been advised about this plan by our local Council. My understanding of a local authority is to have the borough's best interests inmind, however, after finding about these plans, which appear not to have been publicised across the borough of Sutton, it seems I was wrong in my understanding.Nevertheless, I wanted to put my opinions, along with many others', forward to you. Please see my concerns below:I feel having a traveller's site behind the cemetery is detrimental to families visiting their loved ones. For example, bereaved friends/relatives do not wish to experience disturbances, music, shouting, animals etc when in peaceful grounds. In addition to this, the cemetery ismaintained well throughout the year, and should traveller's have a site on the other side of the fence, this could cause damage and waste to the cemetery grounds, again affecting visitors to the cemetery.I personally visit the cemetery on a regular basis and a traveller's site will make my visits to the cemetery more difficult than they already are.It is my understanding that the plot in question is safeguarded for the cemetery for the next 50 years, therefore how can this plot be considered for a traveller's site?When a funeral is taking place, the last thing any person would want is to have noise and disturbance when attending a peaceful place, which I feel would be an issue should the traveller's site go ahead. I do not feel that this is fair on grieving people and I am sure you wouldagree if you were a part of a funeral procession.Local businesses will also suffer due to people not wishing to visit the shops and warehouses on the industrial estate.Additional traffic and congestion will be applied to the A217 which will cause further travel disruptions throughout the day.Many local amenities, such as schools/doctor surgeries/colleges/hospitals, are already at their maximum capacity and having a number of added residents, regardless of being a traveller or not, will have a larger strain on the amenities than it is already suffering. Some people may feel unsafe around travellers, and this will affect people visiting the cemetery and the industrial estate.I am also concerned about the cost the site will have on residents as I am sure the council rates will rise due to the setup and upkeep of the site.I fully understand that traveller's require sites, however, in my opinion I do not feel that the particular plot in question would be beneficial for the community.I have strong opinions about the affect the site will have on the cemetery and the added strain it may cause to the community and its residents.I think the priority for the borough should be additional schools and GP surgeries for the current residents, whom are council tax payers.I sincerely hope that you, the council planners, consider all points put forward to you and notify all residents in the borough of Sutton of each stage throughout the plans, and the progress the proposed site is making.


501 Roger Evans 502 Object I am writing regarding the above proposal contained within the Sutton 2031 document. As a long standing resident (Burford Road from 1986 and Ranfurly Road from 1991) I feel my 30-year experience of the area around the Kimpton Industrial Estate gives me good grounds tocomment.When we first moved to Sutton our intention was that it would be a stepping stone to somewhere else. However, as our children grew up, we realised that living in Sutton was not so bad, in fact it is very pleasant with fantastic amenities and great transport links. The schools thatmy children attended were excellent (All Saints, Benhilton and Nonsuch High School for Girls). They flourished and have not only worked in the borough, (one is a teacher at Wallington High for Girls and the other works in the research unit at the Royal Marsden Hospital), buthave now started to raise their own families here.During our time in Sutton, living in close proximity to the Kimpton Estate, we have seen a remarkable transformation. It has gone from being very rundown and shabby to becoming a thriving business area. I feel that the Kimpton Estate has now become a major asset that theborough can rightly be proud of. The influx of companies is generating jobs and bringing prosperity to the area- filling the council tax coffers I might add. The fact that every day the Tesco supermarket is so busy with families must surely testify to this fact. The A217 is actuallyquite a pleasant drive. People along the route are taking great pride in their houses- investing in keeping them in good order and nicely decorated. The demolition of the Oldfields Road Waste Transfer Station has been a major improvement, removing what was an ugly andmiserable looking smelly concrete monstrosity that dominated the landscape. The A217 from Tesco and Sutton Common Road is a green and pleasant treelined boulevard. Visitors from outside the area remark on how lucky we are to be living in such a nice place. The massivepublic, private and corporate investment in the area is truly paying dividends.

However it is not all perfect. The influx of people into the area is putting severe pressure on the local infrastructure and the local environment. The A217, as mentioned above, is now very busy and has documented dangerously high levels of air pollution particularly dieselparticulates and Nitrogen Oxide/Nitrogen Dioxide (NOX) from vehicle emissions. This increase in pollution can only lead to the increase of respiratory/cardiac diseases and cancer. This will put even more pressure on the NHS which, as we hear every day, is close to breakingpoint. There is huge pressure on schools with insufficient places available to enable the local population to send their children to the school of their choice.In addition the popularity of Sutton has led to property becoming unaffordable for first-time buyers. Houses in our road nowbeing sold for more than 5 times the value they were when we moved and both our daughters have real struggled to save sufficient funds for mortgage deposits. So now we come to the proposed traveller site. The area earmarked is between Sutton Cemetery and the KimptonEstate. It is an area with bushes and well established trees. It gives welcome shelter to an abundance of wildlife that had previously abandoned the area.

But more importantly it provides a natural barrier between the cemetery and the noise and hustle and bustle of the Industrial Estate and the A217. It enables mourners to be able to bury their loved ones without being distracted by road noise. It contributes to making the area aplace where people can visit and mourn their loved ones in peaceful quiet andtranquillity.

The redevelopment of this area into, what is rumoured to be, potentially the largest traveller site in Europe is totally inappropriate. With over 190 pitches there is likely to be in excess of 1,000 additional people in the area. This will increase the pressure on local schools and theNHS. It will result in the destruction of the woodland to enable the development and the inclusion of an access road adjacent to the cemetery entrance will increase traffic and destroy the tranquillity of this haven.I'm told that the traveller site will not only discourage new businesses moving onto the Kimpton Estate but that firms have been actually considering relocating away. This willresult in job losses and the estate reverting back into the eyesore it was when we first moved here 30 years ago. Sadly the area will become somewhere that people rush through to get to somewhere else rather than being a destination of its own. I urge you to vote against theproposal.


502 Martin Orme 503 Object I am somewhat distressed to find that the Sutton Council are proposing to put a travellers site on land that has been designated previously for Sutton Cemetery use , I refer to plot S87.As a local resident and frequent cemetery user,visiting my sons grave,I feel that firstly nobody was informed of this proposal and that it would be detrimental to the calm and tranquillity of the cemetery and surrounding areas. Who wants to visit a noisy cemetery or feel intimidatedwhile visiting a loved one's grave or having a funeral interrupted by either noise of travellers tooing and froing or disruption caused to a funeral procession.A travellers site would increase the traffic on the already struggling A217 causing more queues.Furthermore this could also have an affect on businesses already in the area and new business coming to the area which could subsequently affect jobs for local residents.


503 Lucy Rochford 504 Object I am writing this email to object to the proposed gypsy site at Kimpton Park Way.As a resident of Barrington Road since 2007 I am shocked to find out about this proposal.My son is currently attending Westbourne Primary school which is already oversubscribed and has had to introduce bulge classes within the last few years. Offering a plot for 194 units would put unbelievable stain on a already oversubscribed school.I already struggle to get an appointment at our GP surgery, this will become an even harder task introducing an extra 194 families into the area. My home backs onto the graveyard which is a peaceful, respectful place. I do not want to look over a traveller site and have the noise pollution it will create.I have lived in the borough for many years and paid my taxes. I enjoy living in this area and feel this site will have affect mine and my family's standard of living. I have worked very hard to own my own home and feel the proposed site will devalue my property.


29

Page 1010

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response504 Claire Duffy 505 Object This is not an appropriate site for the travellers site for the following reasons:

There would be great impact onto the already busy road off Kimpton Park industrial estate and also impact to the entrance to the cemetery. The A217 is a very busy road and the junction from Kimpton Park is under pressure particularly at rush hour and at school times. Theaddition of a travellers site at this location will add to traffic and impact on congestion on already busy roads.There is significant pressure on local schools with children in the local area unable to attend primary schools close to their homes, as there is not adequate space in the nearby schools to cope with the children already living in the area. How will the traveller children's educationneeds be accommodated in this area?

It is unclear where the funding for the traveller site will come from. As the previous point, there is a shortage of school places and a shortage of council funding to provide facilities for the local community.In the Guardian article date 31st March 2016, Paul Scully, Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, is quoted as saying “The council by their own admission say they don't necessarily need to provide more land since the Government definition changed. (“new site(s) are neededregardless" of a revised Government definition that means that some families on permanent sites may no longer be classed as travellers because are not "nomadic".)“And at a time when we haven't got enough land to build schools and houses, I don't think this is the right time to be doing it."When there is pressure on public funds, severe pressure on current and future school places; and the local authority may not be required to provide more land for travellers sites due to the revised Government definition, it is unclear why this development is being prioritised in thearea at this time.


505 Mick Kinnarney 506 Object Could you please advise on access & leaving premises as to you have now already made another route into the new side of the industrial estate side of A127 to which traffic still now req assistance.Please advise on Schooling as well don’t seem to be able to allocate on are own children at Present.Also we find it very difficult to gain doctor’s appointment in general if this plan goes ahead have you allowed more new doctors’ practices as to as you know there could be a possibility of st Helier's hospital shutting down ps and waiting times is bad as nought as it is.And disbursing of waist is so expensive how is going to pay for this.As There is a shortage of burial land sorely this is what this land is allocated for please advise and I hope that every person's relatives etc. friends have been told of this In this country and abroud etc as this could be very distressing .Please advise with all the cut backs and the expense of the Sutton life centre which we all already had very good library at ridge road.PLEASE ADVISE OF WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS WITH ALL THE CUT BACKS ETC


506 Pamela Nelson 507 Object I wish to register my objection to the proposals to locate a travellers site on land near Kimpton Park Way. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

508 Anna Lambros 509 Object I am writing with regard to the Sutton Local Plan proposed use of 'potential site allocation S 87 - Land at north of Kimpton Park Way, as a permanent travellers site. in response to Qu 12a I disagree with the council's standpoint that further traveller sites are required. Thegovernment's altered definition of travellers as people of ' a nomadic habit of life ' should be given greater consideration. Sutton already has provision at Woodmansterne and I feel the council has greater priorities for its use of land, such as affordable/ social housing for itsgrowing population than to provide a further travellers site at Kimpton.In response to Qu 12b I feel the proposed site at Kimpton is unsuitable for a number of reasons.- This area is right next to the cemetery which should be respected and remain a peaceful, quiet place for those who have been laid to rest there and those visiting.- The roads in the area of the A217 and surrounding are already very busy and often congested, the site would only increase this more.- Our local schools are oversubscribed and increasing the area's population substantially by having a travellers site would only exacerbate this.- Aesthetically a travellers site with static caravans is not in keeping with the design and architecture of the area.In the council's leaflet ' Planning for our future', 'Positive Growth' is highlighted, let's make sure that this is what happens by listening to the community.


509 Fiona Glasscock 510 Object I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposed Travellers Site at Kimpton Park Way.I do not believe this is an appropriate location for such a site. It is situated right next to a cemetery, where people come to grieve, pay their last respects to family and friends and come for quiet reflection to tend to graves. A busy community right on the doorstep will affect that.A travellers site there will be bad for the businesses on that industrial site, who may well move, taking business away from the area. It will also be bad for house prices and may make it difficult for people to sell.It is very difficult to get a place in one's nearest school and preferred choice, and with a travellers site there, this will put even more pressure on the nearest schools.I am appalled that the council has tried to push this through under the radar. I see that the council claims to have dropped postcards to all the residents in the area informing of a meeting regarding the travellers site, which was subsequently ill-attended. Clearly this was not done.No one I have spoken to in the area received notification.Please take this email as objection to the proposed permanent travellers site on Kimpton Park Way.


510 Anonymous 511 Object Why is the council proposing spending money on a permanent Traveller's site when it could be used to provide affordable housing for local residents on the housing list? A permanent site may encourage other Traveller's to set up illegal sites within the borough leading to theexpensive business of removal and cleaning up of the site. By definition a Traveller is just that and not someone who needs a permanent site.


512 Maureen Briggs 513 Object 1) Having experienced a chap knocking at my front door telling me my gutters needed cleaning and that I had dripping water from the gutter bracket round the back of my house led me to believe that he had actually been in my garden, confirms my fears of having travellers froma proposed site nearby increasing these incidents.If this site goes ahead will these travellers being paying rates, water services etc., which we all do. I thought travellers did not want to put any roots down anywhere but prefered to come and go as they please or am I mistaken? This must greatly affect our school placements,also doctors surgeries are getting beyond a joke to try and actually get to see your own doctor.The land in Sutton is being overdeveloped, I should imagine the pollution in this borough is high.2) Sutton High Street it an eyesore, it's all cafes, mobile phone shops with hardly any individual and unique shops around. As for seeing a plan with the Tramlink actually going through the High Street, which has inexplicably gone completely flat with no gradient, the freedom forshoppers to walk around without the fear of traffic/transport will have gone.I cannot see the Tramlink bringing people into Sutton, just taking them out of it. Not sure how long this will take as to whether I will be around to see the finished project or not. It would appear that the Tramlink will serve routes that already have good transport, we need servicesin the borough for local connections.From past experience I know nothing we individual's say will make the slightest difference to your future plans, probably already been signed, sealed and delivered.


513 Frederick Fenn 514 Object I do not agree with the council's standpoint for a new Gypsy and Traveller site on Plot 87.This land could be used to build permanent affordable homes for people already living in the borough. There is already a recognised need for these homes nationally.In the Local Plan item 1.12.5 says 'The assessment identified NO NEED for a transit or temporary site'There are already 'periodic unauthorised encampments' in the borough. If a site is planned for, and agreed, this will attract more travellers from all over the country no matter how many are PLANNED for. From previous experience the council must be aware that these sitessoon become overcrowded.The area has congested roads, oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries.I hope the council will quickly refuse this element of the plan after giving serious consideration to the problems that will be created by placing itinerant people adjacent to commercial warehouses stocking the very raw materials from which many of them make their living.Finally, how are the considerable costs involved in providing access to the site, and the necessary earthworks going to be paid for.


515 Mrs R A Kirby 516 Object This email is an objection to the proposed travellers site located on the land north of Kimpton Park Way.Myself and my family feel VERY STRONGLY that this MUST NOT go ahead, we already have an over populated area as it is and it would be ridiculous to try and cram more people into it.NO TRAVELLER SITE WANTED!!!!


516 Ms Lesley Sams 517 Object I am writing to comment on the Draft Policy on Gypsy and Traveller Sites.I will confine my comments to Potential Site Allocation S87 Land at North of Kimpton Park Way. I will argue that this site does not satisfy criterion b) in the Draft Policy. I will also comment on the routing of the access road and question the wisdom of not retaining the land forcemetery expansion.

Although it is true the site is not adjacent to any residential properties it is adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Linear Park. I am a regular visitor to both and have strong family connections with the cemetery. There is nowhere else in the area quite like these two places. Thecemetery is a safe place to walk, with no traffic, cyclists, joggers, dogs and ball games which I greatly value as I am severely sight impaired. It is possible in the cemetery to get right away from traffic noise and to just hear the breeze and birds singing. It is by far the mostpeaceful place in the neighbourhood. A cemetery should be like that; a quiet place where people can go to think and pay their respects. Many of the graves are well tended and people obviously have a strong emotional connection with the place. I wonder if this factor wasunderestimated or even taken into consideration at all when the adjacent land was shortlisted as a suitable place for a gypsy and traveller site.

Linear Park is my other favourite place to go for a walk. If I look away from the Kimpton Industrial Park I can almost imagine I am somewhere else and not in Sutton at all. I do not get the chance to travel very far so truly value walking there and looking at the shrubs andwildflowers. I love the winding path and how the park has been landscaped. It is also a safe place to walk; the path is well defined and the park is not so isolated that I feel insecure, but open enough to feel as if I am somewhere different. It is well used with people walking theirdogs, walking with children and sitting on the benches.

In the Pros and Cons list relating to the site in the Gypsy and Traveller Site Search document, one of the Cons is the site may impact on the nearby industrial area. I hope the impact on Sutton Cemetery and Linear Park will be given equal weight and consideration. With nopersonal experience of living near a gypsy and traveller site I do not know to what extent activities on such sites spill over to the surrounding area, but I would worry about noise, mess and the possibility of dangerous dogs and anti social behaviour. It seems clear that inevitablythere would be increased noise of people and vehicle movement and possibly dogs and possibly music. Because the cemetery is so peaceful at present it would be vulnerable to any noise at all coming from an adjacent gypsy and traveller site. Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, Ido not think I would be relaxed about walking in Linear Park were there a gypsy and traveller site so close by.

The access road would obviously have an impact on the immediate area as neither of its possible routes, either via Alcorn Close or via Linear Park, are ideal. The section of Sutton Common Road near Alcorn Close is the busiest part of the entire road with traffic backing upthroughout the day, not only during the school run and rush hours. It could also cause problems for funeral corteges, council workers’ vehicles and other traffic going to and from the cemetery. Bringing the access road in via Linear Park would spoil the landscaped area andwinding path and presumably could also exacerbate traffic congestion in Kimpton Park Way.

I furthermore question the wisdom of changing the planning designation safeguarding the land for potential cemetery expansion. It is estimated that cemetery space in London will run out within 20 to 30 years. So the land already has an important purpose and could be put togood use in the very near future.

So, increased human and vehicle noise affecting the peaceful atmosphere of the cemetery and traffic disruption seem inevitable. There are no other open spaces like Sutton Cemetery and Linear Park in the vicinity and they should be protected. People’s emotional connectionsto the cemetery should not be underestimated. Cemetery space is running out. These are the reasons why I think a gypsy and traveller site would have an unduly adverse impact on the local environment, the character of the area and the amenities of not only local residents,but also visitors to the cemetery and anyone in the future trying to find cemetery space in the area. For these reasons I very much hope the potential land allocation will not be changed.


30

Page 1011

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response517 Derek Rowe 518 Object I'm writing to you to object to the Council’s proposals for S87 for a Gypsy and Traveller site, as set out in the Sutton 2031 Plan.

The Government defines Gypsy and Travellers as those “people with a nomadic habit of life”. This of course you will already be familiar with as it is quoted in your own document at paragraph I12.2. You go on to state that “This means that many Gypsies and Travellers who liveon permanent sites may no longer be classed as Gypsies and Travellers as they do not travel enough”. Imagine my surprise to read then that the council is proposing “one or two” permanent “Gypsy and Traveller” sites.

If, according to the government, Gypsy and Travellers are defined as those, to paraphrase, ‘travel’, and the Council, by its own admission, has “identified no need for New Travellers, Roma or Travelling Showpeople”, and also identified ”no need for a transit or temporary site”then site S87 should not be proposed for a permanent site because (a) is not a Gypsy and Traveller site defined by Government; and (b) even if it were, which it isn’t, there is no identified need (paragraph I12.5) . I will reinforce for reasons for objecting in my subsequentparagraphs set out below.

The Council quotes that “Unprecedented cuts to local authority budgets mean we have to save £74m between 2010 and 2019. That’s almost half our current annual budget” (https://www.sutton.gov.uk/suttonsfuture). How can the council justify building a Gypsy and Traveller site,at a cost of “over £1million”, when there is no identified need for a traveller site, and even if there were this site would not contribute towards meeting that need as it does not meet the definition of a Gypsy and Traveller site? As such I object to the proposals for site S87 as theCouncil cannot afford to pay for sites that are utterly superfluous, as set out above.

This site is defined as “metropolitan open land” and “public open space”. A simple “googling” of this term is quite revealing – Wikipedia defines this as “Metropolitan Open Land" or "MOL" is a term or designation used only within London. Land designated MOL is afforded thesame level of protection as the Metropolitan Green Belt". The Gypsy and Traveller document referenced above states that “Inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary orpermanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances”. If “MOL” isGreen Belt then this development proposal should not proceed as it is inappropriate as set out by government. To labour my point the document continues “Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If a local planning authority wishes to make anexceptional, limited alteration to the defined Green Belt boundary (which might be to accommodate a site inset within the Green Belt) to meet a specific, identified need for a traveller site, it should do so only through the plan making process and not in response to a planningapplication". If land is removed from the Green Belt in this way, it should be specifically allocated in the development plan as a traveller site only”. Therefore the site should not proceed as (a) the council has no identified need and (b) this is not a Gypsy and Traveller site as it ispermanent.

On 10th March Councillor Jayne McCoy sent a letter to the Sutton Guardian confirming that the council had no funding in place to build a Gypsy and Traveller site. How can the council claim that this site can ever be built if, by the admission of one of its councillors, there is nomoney to build it?! The council funding cuts, as mentioned above, are drastic so it is almost certain that you will never be able to afford this – not just in the next 15 years but ever! Where is the logic in saying “we could put a gypsy and traveller here and here – but we can’t everafford to build one? Is the council trying to ‘dupe’ officials into thinking we are trying to provide for travellers, or worse, trying to dupe residents into not objecting? Well I won’t be fooled. We the residents have suffered enough down the years with hairbrained projects that includethe Life Centre, an Incinerator, wooden animals in the high street “improvement” works, the Hackbridge Corner “improvement” (this list is not exhaustive) – This is a record a circus would be proud of, an analogy that is appropriate on many levels not least of which is the fact thatthese so called decision makers are all clowns. The problem is nobody is laughing.

To cut a long story short I object to S87 being used for a Gypsy and Traveller site because:

1. This site does not meet the government’s definition of a Gypsy and Traveller site2. If the site did meet the definition it still shouldn't be built as there is no identified need3. The council cannot afford to provide a site when it has no money to provide its current services4. The site is inappropriate in MOL, particularly as there is no identified need for a Gypsy and Traveller site5. The council cannot afford to build this site (by its own public admission) so should be removed from the Sutton 2031 as it is unrealistic.

I trust these comments will receive the attention that residents of this borough deserve.


518 Anonymous 519 Object I object to planning proposal for a travellers site on plot S87 adjacent to Sutton cemetery for the follow reasons:1. There are already x2 travellers sites in the borough that I pay for. I do not wish to pay for a further development. Suggest the existing sites are enlarged.2. Existing road network surrounding Sutton Common


519 Mr P Bringlow 520 Object I object to planning proposal for a travellers site on plot S87 adjacent to Sutton cemetery1. There are already x2 travellers sites in the borough that I pay for. I do not wish to pay for a further new development and suggest that the existing sites are possibly enlarged.2. Existing road networks, doctors surgeries, hospitals and schools are all already too busy and oversubscribed surrounding Sutton Common road and the Kimpton Estate.3) The quiet sanctuary of Sutton cemetery is not the location to install a housing development.4) Mature trees will need to be felled for such a site5) question: who will be paying for this development?


522 Linda Nicholls 523 Object I am writing to you regarding the proposed travellers site at Kimpton Park Way.As a Sutton resident I have great concerns about this proposal. The influx of 194 families will be a strain on already stretched resources.We recently moved here from inner London, the peacefulness of the area and low crime rate being factors which influenced our choice of where to relocate.I know from experience how a community can change for the worse with such a sudden influx of people. I have worked close to a travellers site in inner London and the strain on local services was devastating to the community. Siblings having to attend different schools andwaiting too long for GP appointments, to highlight just two issues. The crime rate also increased and people become afraid to walk to certain areas and to walk outside after dark. I do not want this to happen in my community.I'm concerned about costs to ensure the site is usable with entrances, as this development will take money meant for local services. What cuts will we face to pay for this? Or will there be an increase in council tax charges? Both very unreasonable for Sutton residents.The site is next to a cemetery which should be a place of peace and reflection. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to create a space here for a community of around 1000 people.There could be opportunity to develop the site to create local jobs, maybe an educational resource like an outdoor learning site, for forest schools (for example). Our children need to be encouraged to be active, what a great investment this would be for our future.


523 Lloyd Nicholls 524 Object This is regarding the proposed travellers site at Kimpton Park Way.As a relatively new resident to Sutton, I have concerns about the above for the following reasons;The amount of people that may end up at this site could very well exceed the 1000 people projected.This will place pressure on resources that are already stretched, such as schools and doctors surgeries.At a time when residents are trying to save St Helier's hospital from possible closure, this proposal seems unwise.Some local businesses are now stating that they may possibly leave if this goes ahead. If those businesses were to leave, this would benefit no one in the community.Given the cuts that have been imposed, an extra 1000 people are going to need policing, costing money that the council apparently doesn't have.Would this lead to a council tax increase?


524 Allan Wilson 525 Object I am writing to object to the proposed travellers site on Kimpton Road.I object in particular to the continued eroding of open space in north Sutton.It appears that Sutton council has no concern at the degrading of the local environment, instead preferring the easy option of sacrificing open space.The building of Sutton Tennis Centre was a previous example of this policy.


525 Robert Kirby 526 Object I would like to make my objections to the proposed travailers site on the kimpton estate as our local area is already over developed and will put increasing pressure on existing facilities e.g schools, doctors surgerys, hospitals.I feel this site could be better developed as something more rewarding to the existing community such as a sports centre or learning centre for the young people of our existing community.


526 I Howard 527 Object I am appalled that you could even consider putting a camp in the middle of an industrial estate and at the bottom of residents gardens apart from that this main road is all ready a nightmare to live with all the extra traffic and pollution, and you want to add to this misery withanother 2 or 3 hundred cars vans lorries daily that gypsies always seem to have and crowd us into becoming a slum area , the schools have waiting lists and doctors surgeries are bursting with the constant influx of immigrants I think enough is enough.you are not consideringthe people who live here. and IF YOU TRY TO SAY WERE INFORMED THIS IS NOT TRUE I OR QUITE A FEW OF MY FRIENDS HAVE NEVER BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS, I AM SURE THAT NONE OF YOUR COUNCILLORS WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN AN AREAWITH APPROX A 1.000 GYPSIES ON YOUR DOORSTEP


527 S Henderson 528 Object I AM OBJECTING TO THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-THIS COMMUNITY'S RESOURCES ARE ALREADY STRETCHED WITH REGARD TO WAITING TIMES FOR APPOINTMENTS AT LOCAL DOCTOR'S SURGERIES, PHARMACIES, DENTISTS SURGERIES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ST HELIER HOSPITAL.THERE IS A DISTINCT SHORTAGE OF SCHOOL PLACES FOR THE LOCAL CHILDREN.OUR WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT WITH MORE CUTS IMMINENT.1000 EXTRA PEOPLE IN THIS VICINITY WOULD BRING ALL PUBLIC SERVICES TO BREAKING POINT AND CAUSE EVEN MORE PROBLEMS ON THE SURROUNDING VERY BUSY ROADS WITH ALL THAT ENTAILS.THE LOCAL CEMETERY IS AT THE EDGE OF THIS PROPOSED SITE AND WOULD NO DOUBT SUFFER - AS WOULD THE NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL ROADS THEREBY DEVALUING PROPERTIES THAT PEOPLE HAVE WORKED HARD TO BUY AND PROVIDEFOR THEIR FAMILIES. THIS, TOO, WOULD MAKE SELLING YOUR PROPERTY LESS ATTRACTIVE TO HOMEBUYERS.PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL


528 Ben Hunt 529 Object I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at the corner of Kimpton Park Road and Oldfields Road.Firstly, I would like to state how unhappy I am that Sutton council did not take the correct steps to ensure local residents were informed of the plans. For your information, I found out on social media, hardly the correct procedure.My understanding is that there was a mailshot, which the residents in my street, Whittaker Road, did not receive.I then find it laughable that the information was then displayed in the Sutton Guardian newspaper, only for the council to realise that it was not distributed in the area most affected.I would now like to list my reasons for opposing the planned Gypsy and Traveller site.

I fail to understand how the council believes there is demand for the site and on such a scale. Your report says that the existing site near Woodmansterne is too overcrowded with demand increasing from families wanting to move from outside of the borough.Is that not the case as with all housing within the borough?Furthermore, your report also states that there is a vacant pitch on the private site, with planning granted for six more pitches.Surely, it would make more sense both economically and logistically to fund the development of an existing site, if you feel there is the need to accommodate more Gypsy and Travellers, rather than build a new one.Secondly, residents have already had to endure the noise, dirt and poisonous emissions from the traffic and construction on the current industrial site, not to mention the refuse and recycling centre, I ask if you really think it is fair that we should be subject to another unwantedconstruction in the areaThirdly, the proposed area is next to a graveyard. I urge to consider the impact the construction and existence of a Gypsy and Traveller site would have on the area. A quite place used for prayers and private moments of reflection -- that current level of harmony and peace wouldbe utterly shattered. I would also like to highlight that the wildlife in the Pyl Brook, a nearby nature reserve, would also be disrupted by additional building and housing in the area.Finally, yet of equal importance, is the impact a Gypsy and Traveller site would have on the local infrastructure. Already, it is difficult for children to get into their local school.Having lived in the borough my whole life, I was alarmed to discover that local primary schools have intakes of in excess of 100 pupils. An extra site for yet more families raises the difficulty of achieving school places, especially given that no new schools are being built in thearea.Furthermore, could you also explain how, with plans to close St Helier Hospital, the additional families would affect the strain on the current National Health System? I currently have difficulty booking appointments with my local GP due to the demand. Surely the Gypsy andTraveller site will only add to the problem.As a result, I urge you all to reconsider the planning proposals.Thank you for your attention and I would welcome any response from my email.


529 Sam 530 Object My name is Samuel Sampah living on the Whittaker Road.I am writing to register my objections to the Sutton council proposal to use a site located on land north of Kimpton Park Way (near the Kimpton Strategic Industrial estate, adjacent to Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Linear Park) as a permanent Travellers site.If this proposal goes ahead, there would be an influx of hundreds of people at the area where local resources are already greatly stretched, and this will negatively have an impact on our community.Some of the local resources to be impacted are the following:-1. Our local schools are already overstretched and unable to accommodate the local populous.2. Waiting times for Doctors surgery appointments will increase. They are far too long as it stands.3. Our local hospital is also overstretched and at breaking point.4. Our 999 services (Ambulance, Police and Fire Brigade services) are overstretched, and the influx of about 1000 people will create major problems for these services.5. Our waste disposal service is already cut and with the coming in of so many people, it will further be under enormous pressure.Due to the above reasons, I am objecting to the council's proposal. I believe the land could be better sued to service the community. A community recreation park could be built instead.I hope these objections would be considered favourably.


530 Anonymous 531 Object Please put the funds that will used on the above project to better use such as schooling. How you accommodate another c1000 people with schools and doctors surgeries already oversubscribed. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

31

Page 1012

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response531 Peter and Shirley

Finnigan532 Object With regard to the above subject I wish to object to this proposal.This area is totally unsuitable for this use due to the close proximity of Sutton Cemetery a development of this type would be inappropriate & disrespectful.

There would also be a serious impact on many already overstretched essential services in the local area including SCHOOLS,DOCTORS SURGERIES,HOSPITALS,999 SERVICES,WASTE DISPOSAL.This proposal would have a totally negative impact on local residents quality of life & infringe on their human rights to live in a Safe & Secure environment that they have previously enjoyed.Based on the above this proposed development must be rejected.


532 J Holmes 533 Object I write in connection with planning to use the land on north of Kimpton Park Way as a permanent Travellers site.I wish to object strongly to the development of this site as a Travellers site !I am local resident ,pensioner I have been living in Sutton all my life ,as my Parents and Grandparents did.Our GP clinics are stretch to the limit to see my doctor I need to wait long time .The same goes with the hospital,for a small ,but very important operation I've been waiting since December 2015.Before bringing more residents to borough council should sort out the problem of overcrowded schools, GP clinics ,hospitals .I hope that council realize that these issues are vital, extremely important keys to a strong community .


534 Sharron Willis 535 Object I would like to place my objection to the proposed plans for a permanent travellers site in Kimpton Way.I feel it is very disrespectful to place it near to a cemetery. I am also concerned about the negative impact this will have being placed in a very populated area so close to Schools and an already overstretched community .


535 Jane Kenny 536 Object I am writing to put on record my objections to the site located on land north of Kimpton Park - Plot S87 - to be used as a permanent Travellers site.This will have a direct impact on Schools which are already oversubscribed, Doctors surgeries and Hospitals whose waiting times are already far too long and waste disposal a service already stretched.


536 Elizabeth A Brown 537 Object Please accept this as my objection to the above site at Kimpton Park Way. The local services are already stretched to breaking point . It must not happen. Why can't the travellers be sited on the outskirts of London where they can live in peace as this is not going to happen inSutton. Local people feel very strongly about this and could you please take into account their feelings on the matter.


537 Angela 538 Object I strongly a pose to the planning application for travellers site on the kimpton park way adjacent to Sutton cemetery this is will have a large impact on the area around the Sutton. The council should be looking after their own people in the community . The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

538 George and ElliNocholaou

539 Object I am heavily opposed against the proposed, permanent traveller site in Sutton.Myself and my wife have just paid £3.5K for 2 grave plots at the cemetery and we would not have proceeded had we known this was the plan. It's unsightly and will cause unwanted traffic.It's also widely accepted that such sites devalue areas and bring their own social issues.As pensioners, we have worked very hard to get to this stage and wish to enjoy our retirement and not take a financial hit for a life's work.I hope you will look favourably upon our and the other thousands of protest signatures on this matter. It's a poor suggestion that should not see the light of day and we did not receive prior consultation on this.


540 Anonymous 541 Object I am against the council's proposal of building a travellers site next to Sutton Cemetery. We have a good school, youth centre, cemetery and linear park that all would suffer should your proposal go forward to completion, surely there must be a less populated area within thedistrict that such a site could be built. The value of our homes will decrease if this build is allowed and good people will start to move away.


541 Anonymous 542 Object I feel compelled to write and complain about plans to site 194 permanent hard standing pitches near to Sutton Cemetery just North of Kimpton Park WayThis area has just undergone a massive increase of industrial units on Kimpton Park Way which has added much more HGV vehicles around the area which brings emissions pollution with it, not to mention all workers cars parked around locally adding to all cars going to Tescoon the same roadThe Cemetery is a nice peaceful location on the higher level which has our local library and close to more than 1 school just off the A217All this would be pushed to almost gridlock at peak hours if this proposed Traveller Site goes ahead


542 Mr J Dobbe 543 Object I object to this the area is already struggling with traffic school placement and it would be disrespectful so close to the graveyard and schools The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

543 David Dennelly 544 Object we write to voice our opposition to the proposed traveller site for the following reasons.Being so close to the cemetery, it would be inappropriate to have a residential development so close whereby noise and other pollution might spoil the tranquility of the cemetery.There have been many developments in the area and the infrastructure cannot cope with the existing level of the population.Traffic, given the amount I traffic already in that area it would be inappropriate to add to the congestion.


545 Christine Wardell 546 Object Myself and my husband are opposed to the site at Sutton cemetery because it is definitely a very inappropriate place for anything like a travellers site. Please reconsider these plans as so many people in the neighbourhood are very upset and angry about this proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

547 Mr Chris Fenn 548 Object I am a Sutton resident just round the corner for the proposed site. I oppose the site and say that it wouldn't be very good for the area. I am well aware that the Travellers have to go somewhere but not at this proposed site. I have seen what happened when they arrived inBeddington Lane and it was a total nightmare. Also the congestion will be totally unacceptable, not to mention the mess and the pressure it would put on our already overcrowded schools and shops near the area. The way you have proposed the way they would enter and exitthe site wouldn't work and I'm sure that if this went ahead, the cemetery would be disturbed in a very in savoury and horrible fashion. Please please please do not action this site. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that the residents nearby would be very apprised to the site and Ishare their anguish.


548 D Brennan 549 Object With regards to this proposed site it find it one totally disrespectful to myself and my living and buried family members as not only are you about to ruin the peaceful times I get to spend my my family members that have passed, but also now you are going to give up the groundwhere we could all be together again one day.As a local resident have we not had enough building works on the trading estate , and the amount of extra traffic already in the area with a lot of HGV vehicles around that particular junction and excessive cues at peak times already, to now have a lot of the stores threaten tomove if this travellers site goes ahead and the trading estate possibly become a derelict abyss again !I have lived and worked and contributed my whole life, as have generations of my family in Sutton to be forced out by this proposal as I live on Clensham lane and could not stay around if this happens


549 Mr and Mrs Deacon 550 Object Once again I am writing to the council in total disagreement about the above travellers site S87. It is disrespectful to even consider putting anything next to a Christian burial site both myself and my husband are totally against this on principle. Please do the right thing anddisregard the idiotic proposal?


550 Giles Scerri 551 Object I'm emailing you today tell you that I completely oppose the proposal to the site. It will be a huge drain on our resources. For an 'up and coming' area building this site will take us right back. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

554 A Stagg 555 Object Please can you reconsider your plans for the development of a travellers site on Sutton cemeteryI am opposed to it for obvious reasons


556 Polly Castelo 557 Object I wish to register again my disagreement with the proposal for a traveller's site on the A217: it is not appropriate to put such a site next to a cemetery, and next to the main road.I have e-mailed before but not to this address.I urge the council to reconsider this proposal.


558 Carol Douce 559 Object I am opposed to the development of travellers site right next to the cemetery. I do not see why this site has been chosen. This is very insensitive and will not do the area any good whatsoever. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

561 Lesley O'Neill 562 Object I am very much opposed to the proposal of a permanent traveller site near the cemetery. Both my parent and one set of Grandparents are buried there and it would be very upsetting to see the lovely surroundings ruined.I hereby register my objection to Proposal S87 traveller site at Sutton Cemetery.


564 Kirsty Costello 565 Object I am very much opposed to the proposal of a permanent traveller site near the cemetery. Both my parents and one set of grandparents are buried there and it would be very upsetting to see the lovely surroundings ruined.I hereby register my objection to Proposal S87 traveller site at Sutton Cemetery.



568 Object I wrote to conform that I am vehemently opposed to the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery for the following reasons:-- A completely inappropriate area in which to place the site. A cemetery is a place of calm and solitude and with the noise and nuisance that comes with travellers sites, then I am appalled that Councillors have even considered this- Complete lack of information prior to this proposal which, apparently was well hidden in the 2031 Sutton vision document. I consider myself reasonably well computer literate, but I could not find mention of this in the particular document. I understand from one resident that ina conversation with a Planning Officer, she had to be talked through the link process!!!Implementation through the back door springs to mind- Lack of information regarding the public meeting held at the Life Centre in March. With nearly 5000 signatures in the petition, and only 100 at the meeting, surely reinforces the complete lack of prior information.Following on from this, I trust that the Council have set aside a large enough room for the meeting on 21st June as I understand that there is a great swell of feeling against the ridiculous proposal. It would not look good in the media if residents cannot gain entry because of lackof space.-Lastly I do not wish my council tax to fund this site where the occupants do not contribute in any way to local funds but avail themselves of the already cash strapped funds for the coming years. Let any available monies go to extra school places, better nhs services or elderlycare


568 William Castelo 569 Object I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed travellers site next to Sutton cemetery.I feel the it would be disrespectful to the relatives of anyone buried in the cemetery and to memory of the deceased. Space is already at a premium in cemeteries and this land will be needed in the future as the population grows and more burial sites are required.I also think the site is too close to A217, which is a main dual carriageway, and this could be dangerous if any livestock that the travellers have escapes.I am happy for you to forward this email to anyone else or any department necessary,


569 Billy Marshall 570 Object I am opposed to the proposed s87 travellers site at Sutton crematorium. It would lower our house valuations The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

571 Barry Oluoma 572 Object Please i am opposed to the decision . Thanks The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

572 Mr A F Hook 573 Object You should hang your heads in shame for even considering this proposed travellers site without first consulting the local residents. A token gesture of a few postcards in a couple of roads does not constitute canvassing the local area. Yet again it appears Sutton council cannot beopen and transparent, and have clearly tried to railroad this proposal with no regard for the residents it will actually have an impact on. Massive cuts to local services to help fund this proposal are an absolute disgrace. This area needs regeneration, not a site that will have animpact on every local service, business and resident. The stats speak for themselves, with an increase in what are already local services under tremendous strain. Schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, emergency services, refuge collection, child services to name but a few, willall be put under even more pressure. Has anyone considered the fact that property prices in this area will decrease. When potential buyers search the local area, they will be dissuaded from buying because everybody knows the issues that a site like this will bring. I would love toknow how many councillors live in this immediate area, not many I reckon. If we are to accept travellers into our local community, and the council want them to integrate and contribute in a positive way, give them proper housing in proper areas. By definition,Travellers arenomadic?. A permanent site for a nomadic community is a contradiction. There is still a massive legal issue over this, as the Government's latest definition is still unclear and is at present open to legal challenge. How insensitive can you be to propose a site next to our localcemetery, This is a place of peace and quiet reflection for local residents. Just consider if you were laying flowers on the grave of a relative and you were confronted with the site. Local people have paid thousands of pounds to give their families a decent and final resting place.Go and have a look, it's a beautiful cemetery. This proposal is clearly not representative of local residents. You obviously have no concept of local problems or issues this site will cause. You need to remember you are public servants, accountable to the local public, working inthe best interests of local residents for a safer and decent local borough. Many of you will not even be Councillors when the true impact of this proposal is seen, in years to come. I will still be living here, unable to sell my property, living in fear and despising every one of you.Please, I implore you, do the decent and right thing. Reject this proposal for the sake of all concerned and do one good thing in your position of power.


574 Mrs Audrey Bevis 575 Object I am most concerned regarding the above subject and would like to register my complaint.I feel this would not be acceptable to have this in a borough such as Sutton due to the overcrowding of schools, doctors and hospitals. Also I feel very concerned about security issues attached to this proposal which could affect local residence.


576 Rui Hong 577 Object I just want to say I am opposed to the proposal S87 the Traveller Site at Sutton Cemetery. Because I don't want a Travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. I find it disrespectful. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

32

Page 1013

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response578 Mark Ferrier 579 Object I am opposed to the travellers site at Kimpton estate The council will undertake further work on making

provision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

580 Robert Cole 581 Object As a local resident within three minutes walk of the proposed site I am very concerned about the impact to my family, the local environment and character of the area if this proposal were to go ahead. In the Sutton Local Plan Evidence Base Library > 8. Housing Gypsy &Traveller Evidence Paper 3- Site Search July 2015 it states in the Cons section of the proposed site. Planning Designations: Part Safeguarded Land for a Cemetery Extension. Surely this should take priority. Other cemeteries that are short of space could also make use of thissite. It also states: Access from Kimpton Park Way would require taking part of the Kimpton Linear Park. This is used for walkers and joggers and would be a great shame to lose it. Also stated: May impact on the nearby industrial area. This has obviously been stated for a goodreason. It has taken years to build up the Kimpton industrial area and is of major concern to the shops and businesses in the area and to local residents that work there. I am concerned that it would stop new business from coming to the Kimpton area.It would be terrible to see itdecline. Finally in the Cons: Site slopes sharply from north to south and development would require substantial earthworks.It sounds like it would cost us a lot of money to make this site suitable.


582 Marie Laramy 583 Object I do not want a traveller site at Kimpton road.My family are buried in the cemetery next to proposed site. As a local council tax payer I do not agreed with council fund being put to this use.


583 Mrs S Martin 584 Object Please accept this email in relation to the above proposal.I am against the proposal due to its proximity to the cemetery.In my experience, traveller sites in other areas have caused mess, disturbance and noise and given the proximity to the cemetery, which is a place for quiet reflection a and remembrance, I consider this proposal to be ill-conceived and misplaced at this site. I oppose theproposal.


592 Rob Studholme 593 Object I am opposed to the proposed travellers site at kimpton road site Sutton The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

593 Pauline Lovelace 594 Object I would like to voice my objection to the proposed site for travellers that is planned.My reasons are it's not the right place for a travellers site right next to a place of rest.I think it's very insensitive to put it next to a cemetery.Schools will be affected and are already over subscribedRubbish collection and facilities are not appropriateI believe this needs to be reassessed at what an impact this will have on the local area


595 John Butler 596 Object I am emailing you regarding my opposition to the proposed travelers site at Kimpton Road, SuttonThis would definitely be a very bad move for Sutton in general and for all the new businesses that have invested a lot of time and money to set up in this areaPlease please please do not go through with thisSutton is finally on the up with new developments, businesses and investment at a record highWhy why why would you want to send us backwards with this proposal?I sincerely hope that you will see sense and turn this proposal down


596 Allan Renton 597 Object I wish to register my strong disagreement with the proposed travellers site at Sutton Cemetery and any further sites in Sutton, the current site in Woodcote should meet all the Councils obligation. Are the Council trying to encourage more travellers into the Borough of Sutton, if sowhy?I would have assumed the lack of affordable housing in Sutton should be their first concern. If this proposal goes ahead I would expect Kimpton road will fast become a major cost to Sutton residence in rubbish clearance.I would remind Councillors of the land exploited and polluted by travellers to the East of the A237 in Hackbridge, it is still an eyesore and useless after how many years?


597 Anonymous 598 Object I am writing to express my strong disappointment that Sutton Council plan to build a traveller's site near the peaceful cemetery. As a taxpayer, I would like the council panel to think about the proposal carefully. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

601 Linda Perry 602 Object I am totally against the proposed S87 Travelers site at Sutton Cemetery. Why can't the site be used to generate money and jobs, a place the community can use.ie there has been no bowling alley in the area since for years, somewhere all members of the family can usewhatever their age. A Travellers site will only cost money - council tax money.


602 Mrs S Humphries 603 Object I would like to say I'm opposed to this site, I live with my husband and 2 children at Rosehill and would not be happy for my children to play out on the fields if there was a travellers site. We have only just stopped them from going onto the open space opposite the hospital. Also Iwork at the tesco on oldfields road this will affect the trade and traffic around the area.


603 Barrie Whittington 604 Object I am writing in opposition to the proposed Kimpton Travellers Site.This could have a seriously detrimental effect on local business and I can see businesses moving away from the area as a result.This would no doubt lead to a loss of local jobs in that area.I also do not like the thought of a travellers site next door to my local cemetery. I have relations who have graves there and find the idea of this site adjacent to it as appalling.In addition there is the question of added traffic along the A217 and adjoining roads, which is already very busy.I would be very interested to find out exactly how this site is to be funded? Are we the local residents supposed to fund it in increased taxes?I urge the planning department re-think this idiotic plan.


605 Miriam Whittington 606 Object I am writing in opposition to the proposed Kimpton Travellers Site.This could have a seriously detrimental effect on local business and I can see businesses moving away from the area as a result.This would no doubt lead to a loss of local jobs in that area.I also do not like the thought of a travellers site next door to my local cemetery. I have relations who have graves there and find the ideaof this site adjacent to it as appalling.In addition there is the question of added traffic along the A217 and adjoining roads, which is already very busy.I would be very interested to find out exactly how this site is to be funded? Are we the local residents supposed to fund it in increased taxes?I urge the planning department re-think this idiotic plan.


606 Karen Peters 607 Object I am voicing my deep concerns regarding the proposed travelers site at Sutton cemetery S87.The reasons being:Sutton already has a large population of people who are unemployed. This will put even greater pressure on taxpayers who already contribute Sutton borough through working taxes and Council taxGP surgeries are already overcrowded and this will have a greater impact.Have you thought about local schooling? I have, as my granddaughter was unable to get 1st or 2nd preference. As I understand Traveller's will get priority with schooling.With regard to settling next to a cemetery where people go to reflect on the loss of a loved one this is deeply insensitive of Sutton council.I along with other residents of Sutton Borough strongly ask you to reconsider this application


607 Jamie Whittington 608 Object I am writing in opposition to the proposed Kimpton Travellers Site.This could have a seriously detrimental effect on local business and I can see businesses moving away from the area as a result.This would no doubt lead to a loss of local jobs in that area.I also do not like the thought of a travellers site next door to my local cemetery. I have relations who have graves there and find the idea of this site adjacent to it as appalling.In addition there is the question of added traffic along the A217 and adjoining roads, which is already very busy.I would be very interested to find out exactly how this site is to be funded? Are we the local residents supposed to fund it in increased taxes?I urge the planning department re-think this idiotic plan.


610 Lorraine Lott 611 Object Why? Very inappropriate. Site far too small The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

611 Gary Cottell 613 Object I am very opposed to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery as it is morally wrong to site next to cemetery, also a very busy road junction already, shortage of local school spaces, impact on quality of life for local residents, and finally no need for site with change ingovernment policy.

Council are making great strides with improvement to North Sutton with the developments on Kimpton industrial estate (new Wickes etc) plus the excellent Gas Works development = why lose all this progress and good will to cater for out of borough travellers.


754 Mr Ray Liffen,Treasurer,Carshalton-on-the-HillResidents'Association

615 Object We do not support the release of this land. For reasons, see answer to 12b. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

615 Michelle Bevan 616 Object I am writing to voice my concerns of the proposal of the travellers site at Kimpton industrial estate. When I first heard of this proposal, it deeply saddened me. I have a 4 year old son who we would very much like to go to our local school, Cheam Park Farm. This school is alreadyso oversubscribed, as are most of the surrounding schools. If this proposal goes ahead there will be many more children needing a school place and I would like to know where you suggest these children will go? Not only schools but what about the local doctors surgeries? It'snear-on impossible to get a doctor's appointment if I call up over 10 minutes after the surgery has opened for me and my family, with all of these extra families it will make this situation even worse. It goes without saying that not only doctors surgeries but the local A&E simply willnot be able to cope. Many times have I been to A&E this last year and had to wait over 5 hours to be seen purely because of the sheer volume of people attending along side me. Have allowances been given to budget funds for all the extra amenities required to be used by thisextra influx of people?

Another concern is how congested the surrounding roads are already, especially the A217. This proposal will bring so many more people to the area, creating so much more traffic on a road that already is so congested and simply can not cope.


616 Clare Berriman 617 Object I am writing in regards to the above travellers site. I feel it will affect school places in the local area which is already a concern and will also affect the house prices in the local area. Many people have worked hard to buy houses in the area and have had to pay a high price andhave high mortgages. If the house prices drop considerably people could be left in negative equity. The A217 is already a very busy road and extra traffic will build up on the roads that will be used to gain access to the site.


617 Julie Orme 618 Object I don't think putting a traveller site next to the cemetery as it will disturb the peace . I am disabled and go there often to visit my sons grave as he died aged 16 weeks old from cot death and I find a lot of comfort sitting there talking to him and crying as I think of him every day .Also I think what if the gypsies get caught up in a funeral procession this could be a disaster for the sad party . What about the parking it's bad enough as it is so it will only get worse . So on days like Christmas Day and Mother's Day Father's Day and other bank holidays .People like myself would not be able to visit our loved ones grave . Some of the local trading places are thinking of moving off of the kimpton estate and that's no good for us locals or sutton as a town


619 Tommy Wharfe 620 Object I am writing to oppose to the proposed permanent travellers site at Sutton Cemetery. I live on Whittaker Road so would be greatly affected by the addition of the travellers site in such close proximity to my house and local amenities.

I already worry about over subscription to local schools and services and fear the placement of a large new community will exasperate this situation.

I also think the site would alter the feeling of the cemetery and has the potential to upset a lot of people with family members buried there.

Please consider my objection to the proposed permanent travellers site.


622 Donna Ayling 623 Object I would like to voice my disapproval about the proposal of the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery. I feel that this would be totally detrimental to the local area and would cause upset & distress to the local residents and especially the visitors to the cemetery. The council shouldlisten to the taxpayers in the borough and not allow this site to be placed anywhere in the London Borough of Sutton.


33

Page 1014

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response624 Clair Camoccio 625 Object I have strong concerns regarding the viability of the site due to the existing lack of school places in the area. Children are already being refused places within the vicinity that they live and the site will place an increased demand on available places ... my son lives on Cheam Park

Farm and has already been declined a nursery space last year and I fear an increase in children within the area will add to this problem.Furthermore, I have done a small amount of research and have identified that certain developments within a residential area will impact on house prices, which I feel is unfair to those who have worked hard to save to buy a home within their chosen area only to have the valuejeopardised by a proposal such as this.The A217 is already one of the busiest roads in the country and a site of this size will further increase traffic in an already congested area.BBC News reported on 25 August 2015 that:London's most congested roads include:A217 - Rosehill roundabout to New Kings RoadThis shows that it is the top of the list for congested roads ... I cannot be anything other than astounded that you consider it appropriate to further add to this issue.There is then on top of the above concerns the ethical and moral consideration around placing such a large site next to a cemetery...A place where people have entrusted loved ones remains in a peaceful environment. .. This proposal, I feel is completely disregarding the feelingsof the community who have relatives/friends laid to rest - i am led to believe this is planned to be one of the largest sites on the country - however this point I am not sure on but the concern is valid regardless of whether it is one of the largest or not ...

This is not a case of nimbyism on my part ( i am sure you have received many unvalid concerns linked to this) ... mine is more around the practicalities of the development.


625 Wang Ken 626 Object I'm a Sutton resident, regarding you want a travellers site in Sutton, here's my comments:

1. We do not want a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. We find it disrespectful. Would you buy a loved one a plot right next to a traveller site ???

2. We do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move if thisproposal happens. Would they stay in the borough. What about the jobs that they provide for local people would they be lost?

3. Extra traffic on the A217 at an already difficult Junction. Two proposals were made for access to the site. Off the Kimpton Park Way way on the Kimpton estate right opposite the road down to Tesco's , or the second option is access right next to the cemetery entrance itself.

4. Expected cost quoted in excess of 1 million pounds of which the council has no funding. So who would be paying for this??? Us the residents. We are already facing a hike in our council tax would they do it again or would they cut some other vital service.


626 Xiaoke Yin 627 Object 1. We do not want a travellers site right next to a peaceful cemetery. We find it disrespectful. Would you buy a loved one a plot right next to a traveller site ???2. We do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move if thisproposal happens. Would they stay in the borough. What about the jobs that they provide for local people would they be lost?3. Extra traffic on the A217 at an already difficult Junction. Two proposals were made for access to the site. Off the Kimpton Park Way way on the Kimpton estate right opposite the road down to Tesco's , or the second option is access right next to the cemetery entrance itself.4. Expected cost quoted in excess of 1 million pounds of which the council has no funding. So who would be paying for this??? Us the residents. We are already facing a hike in our council tax would they do it again or would they cut some other vital service.


627 Shirley Cox 628 Object As a resident of the borough for the last 70 years, I am totally opposed to the Cemetery Site, adjacent to the A217, having a travellers site built.

This borough has been cutting back or closing down facilities for the elderly and young for some time and now with the thoughts of a further 800-1000 new residents in this area of the borough, this is going to be a further drain on all our facilities. · Where are the children going to go to school? Established families are finding great difficulty already in getting their children into nursery, primary and high schools. More children in the area, would make it even harder.· These people would need medical care. It is already hard enough to get an appointment to see a GP, even when you've been with a practise for many years. An increase in the area would make an even longer wait for an appointment. This would also apply to our hospitalsand their waiting lists also.· Businesses as well, needs to be considered. You very rarely see job vacancies so where will these new residents find work?· The area in question for your ‘new development’, I understand is used already by junior football teams. The Life Centre project was built with the loss of a youth club. These days we are urging young people to be healthy, to get involved with sport or other activities.Anything to get them off the streets, because they are bored with nothing to do. Something to stop them sitting in front of a games console or computer for hours on end. How can they when facilities are being taken away?· Why can't this site be used for existing residents in the borough? Perhaps even a multi-purpose sports area.· My other thoughts on opposing the use of the site, is because of the proximity of the cemetery. Funerals take place on an almost daily basis and having been to a funeral there recently, at the moment there is peace and tranquillity. Do you think that will remain with 1000residents ‘next door’? I think not. Grieving relatives need consideration as well, when going to the cemetery.

It was only 2 weeks ago that residents were made aware of these plans in the Sutton Guardian and I'm sure there are many that still do not know. Surely more notification should have been given, some sort of consultation so that all residents in the area can voice their opinion asto what happens in the borough. Or, has the decision been made already???


629 George Rice 630 Object I wish to register our objection to the proposed Travellers site at Sutton Cemetery (S87) based on the following:

At a time when Sutton Council is being forced to reduce services due to financial constraints and enforced savings, it is inconceivable that they are proposing not only to spend a ludicrous amount of money in creating this site but also the increased cost to the borough bothfinancially and in resources neither of which the council can afford.

The extra burden placed on local Schools, Doctors, Refuse Collection and Policing to name but a few is unacceptable especially at a time when all the services are being cut due to lack of funds.

In addition the location of the proposed site is totally inappropriate and quite frankly insulting to those who have loved ones buried in Sutton Cemetery.

I, and my whole family feel extremely strongly that this proposal should be refused as the cost in all aspects is too high and the local area will be damaged beyond repair.


633 Lee Petherick 634 Object I am opposed to the above proposal to have a travellers site situated at Kimpton Road in Sutton.

Having worked in various guises around an area close to a major traveller's site in Basildon for a number of years, I feel that any permanent site would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area, including a possible rise in crime, rubbish, fly tipping and will make some ofthe local public houses unusable and therefore unpopular for people who live in 'traditional' residences.

I also believe that situating a permanent site next to a cemetery is a very poor plan and appears to not care for people who have buried their loved ones there, who will feel intimidated in going to visit the graves.


634 六奶奶 635 Object I represent my family Hong Xian who live on Stayton Road send you email about the proposal S87 the travellers site at sutton cemetery that, we against this proposal at all. Please stop it. Thank you! The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

635 Chris Andrew 636 Object This is very close to home with a recent off my wife's car broken into and my own car being keyed and mirror kicked off, I personally feel we have enough issues with local crime.

I know all travellers are not bad but do we need anymore


636 Concerned residentSutton

637 Object I'm writing to comment about the proposed travellers site by Sutton Cemetery Kimpton road. I'm opposed to this development as I have real concerns over the already overloaded schools in the Sutton area. It would seem all schools are having to expand to fit the growingnumbers of children already without schools in the Sutton area this is going to compound the problem. It makes no sense to add to the population of Sutton in this way creating further issues for schools with already long waiting lists. I understand that due to legal requirementsthe children of these families within the travelling community will have priority over council tax paying residents in the area and this hardly seems fair. Not to mention the fact that the local hospital seems under threat. It is a growing concern for the local area that we may not endup with a hospital to support us. For that reason is seems crazy to encourage young families to Sutton when we can not offer facilities that they will no doubt require as some point.


637 Wayne Hunt 638 Object I would like to air my concerns over the proposed traveller site application at Sutton Cemetery.

I would like to object to the proposal based on that this has no benefit to the council, and residents of the borough. It will cause ongoing issues with local residents long after if the site is approved.

My job takes me to many places, and the traveller sites that I have come across have huge amount of rubbish that has been thrown over the sites fence. Also the claygate site has horses. Two horses last year escaped and managed to cause a lot of who har, having caused acrash, and road closures. In turn causing major disruption to the roads

The land could and should be put to better use. What about affordable home? As we have huge housing issues within London. Commercial businesses, whereby more jobs could be created.

I don't want to see this site to go ahead, and travellers are travellers for a reason. They travel and have no main residence.

Ask yourself this. How would you feel if you had a traveller site in close proximity to your place of residence?


639 Jin Tong 640 Object I would like to express my opposition to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

640 H Gao 641 Object I do not want a travellers site here!I do not want a travellers site here!I do not want a travellers site here!I do not want a travellers site here!I do not want the loss of local businesses. Residents had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends and would be put at risk. Some businesses are already looking to move if thisproposal happens.


34

Page 1015

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response641 Ray P. Harwood

FRICS, ManagingDirector, Centro

642 Object I have returned from abroad today and have read about the London Borough of Sutton's proposals for the above.

I understand many before me will have lodged their observations in a required timescale by Friday 8 April 2016, but that was not possible for me, and I now wish to make some basic comments.

The London Borough of Sutton, for many years now, have identified the industrial estate, originally in their ownership, as virtually the only industrial facility in the west of the Borough. In its original form, it was very successful in the lifetime of the then buildings which becameoutdated and insufficient for the needs to attract industrialists to the Borough.

In recent times, this Company has been involved in actively marketing the various available sites for privately sponsored activity to encourage major employers into the area, and that has met with substantial funding support from investors on the developed and occupied sitesand the basis of asset worth in many years to come.

What is perhaps not completely understood is that the recent substantial development involving many millions of pounds worth of funding, even of the type involving pensioners' investments for their future income, has been on land where the Freehold reversion remains vested inthe London Borough of Sutton, ergo, every person living in the area and paying Council tax rates and producing other income for the Local Authority. Even the life of the current genre of buildings will become reviewable at some time in the future and at that time the activity in theimmediate environment will become a source of consideration as to take up of space and availability of funding. To dent enhancement of asset worth on one's own property is surely shooting oneself in the foot.

I share the view of some of those investors and others that on commercial grounds the housing of travellers, with relatively short-term interest in their style of living in the Borough, is just not compatible with the inventions of others and indeed would have had, and will have, adownside effect on the current and potential future developments. On that basis, the suggestion is, in my view, to be frowned upon and dismissed.

However, looking at the vacant land, in terms of planning use there is a need which has been much publicised in recent times for affordable housing of a permanent nature in the Borough. I would submit that if there is to be a new proposed use of the site from its existing status ofunused amenity land, it would be absolutely ideal for social housing. Such development would not be detrimental to existing and future large scale investment in the Kimpton Estate area, in particular, and the Borough in general. Such residential activity would be more than usefulfor those being newly employed in the area facing pressure on their accommodation requirements. That provision was part of the invention of the affordable housing movements.

There is no national policy of which I am aware which dictates further provision of a ''traveller'' type site to accommodate those who fit in what that connotation of people not intending to stay long-term in any one location. The London Borough of Sutton, a number of years agonow, took an initiative alongside other London Boroughs and committed to traveller establishments in areas where the intended occupants could breathe in a style more in the vein of their pseudo Romany way of life. The sites in Carshalton/Reigate and Banstead locations meetthose needs adequately.

THERE IS NO GOOD SUPPORTABLE REASON, IN MY VIEW, TO SUPPRESS SOME MINORITY VIEWS WITHIN THE COUNCIL, AND ITS VOTING SUPPORT, AND TO FORWARD COMMIT INTO THE STRANGE INTENTIONS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILWHO CURRENTLY HOLD THE POLITICAL SWAY.

In a totally apolitical way we would join those who oppose the suggestion on non-emotional, but sound commercial and planning grounds. If that is in doubt then it is a supportable fact that since the announcement of this intention this Company in its Agency role, has had anacceptable offer which had been made for the occupation of a significant built industrial building withdrawn. We submit that is a likely regular future occurrence if the Council's proposals proceed.


642 Kaye 643 Object I'm putting this in writing as I'd just like to say I am very much opposed to this proposal going ahead. My reasons for this are from a family point of view and in support of home owners.My children go to Glenthorne and I want them to feel completely safe on their journey to and from school. If this was near you, you would feel the same.Its a shame for homeowners whose property may be affected from loss of property value to lots of actual property.You may think I'm being a bit over zealous but these are real fears for us all.Our schools are oversubscribed as it is, this will only make matters worse with less local people getting their choices.


644 Yunfeng Wu 645 Object I strongly against the Proposal S87 - the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery.

I have lived in sutton more than 10 years, and I know many most sutton residents against this. I represent my family, and some of my friends.


645 Zhiqian Zeng 646 Object I'm opposed to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

647 Yanbo Zhou 648 Object I'm opposed to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

649 Mr & Mrs Kosky 650 Object After the 'meeting' on Sat 9th April at the life centre, my wife & I walked around the cemetery. We could not find anywhere where the travelers site could be located without causing a major disturbance to the residence in the area.So we must object to a travellers camp being placed also so close to a cemetery.


652 Mr & Mrs Mezroui 653 Object Please can you explain why the Council did not write to us and all the other local residents about this proposal of an application for a Traveller site near Sutton Cemetery ?? My family have lived & worked in Sutton for generations and as far as I'm aware if we wish to do anythingto our home/area we have to let the Council write to local residents for approval before it is considered . Why did the same not happen with this situation ? We only found out by leaflet from some Stonecot people appointing help in letting the residents affected about the situation& to sign a petition . I would also like to know who pays for this site ? Do Travellers pay Council Tax or any Tax ?? Am very much opposed to this proposal S87 apparently I have missed the cut off date for my complaints but feel this very unfair as we only found out in the lastweek about this !!


654 Stuart Pollock 655 Object I am writing to express my concerns and objections to Proposal S87.

Given the location of this corner site I am surprised to see it is even under consideration. I believe the land to be unsuitable due to it's uneven terrain, elevation and proximity to a major traffic route, any access to the site from the A217 or the Kimpton Park Way will impact analready busy junction. The location of the 2 pylons to the rear of the area must also have an impact, regardless of the development in question who would want to have these in such extremely close proximity.

I'm travelling to and from Edinburgh by train a fair bit at the moment and have seen a couple of such sites (admittedly from a train travelling at some speed) and can see no way that that sort of layout could even be considered for this tight corner of land.

Finally, I also deem it rather uncivilised to have ANY new development in such close proximity to the graveyard accessed from Alcorn Close but a few metres from the rear of this site.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.


658 Holly Remzi 659 Object I am sure you are aware of an online petition already objecting against a proposed travellers site near the A217, if not please see the link below.https://www.change.org/p/sutton-borough-council-stop-the-kimpton-travellers-site/c

I am writing on behalf of myself and my family (4 adults) to strongly object to the proposal as local residents who this will affect. Apparently local residents were notified of this and given the option to discuss on 16th March at the Life Centre, however I, and many others I havespoken too, were not aware of this.

You may be aware that a number of residents attended the life centre on 9th April for the local councillors surgery to object and residents will attend many other such public forum's to continue voicing their objections.

The reasons for our objections are as follows:1) The site will be located close to a major road, is this not illegal? The A217 is a major road which is always extremely busy.2) The proposed site is close to a cemetery where people's loved ones (mine included) are laid to rest with proposed entrances close to the cemetery entrance. This is a place of peace and reflection.3) There are already enough travellers sites in the borough and neighbouring boroughs. Spend some money doing these up4) School places and doctors surgeries are already over subscribed.5) House insurance will go up and values go down they already have as apparently estate agents have been aware of this for a while!

The council stated it notified residents out of approximately 70 people I spoke to only one was notified. You can get the polling cards out quick enough and ensure everyone gets them but not a notification of proposal that will affect many?


661 Chunna Jiang 662 Object This email is to express our serious concern regarding the proposal of traveler site in Sutton!

We moved to Sutton four years ago as a young family because the the good family environment, school service and safety to young children. We must admit that Sutton is not the best to commute to London for work, and parents had to cope with all these slow train service fromvarious local stations in Sutton. And Thameslink the the least satisfied train company.

However, by having more traveler site in Sutton, we can see increasing problems in safety, schooling and health care, this is going to make Sutton less attractive for resistance and families.

Especially the site proposed at the plot near Sutton Cemetery. It is so disgraceful.

If the live ones have opportunities to move away from Sutton, how about those be-loved passed away people?

I hope the Council will not make the decision to disappoint all local residences and force people to move away.

I have already seen in a number of property investment forum that people start advising each other to avoid Sutton due to the potential traveler sites.


664 Pat Mahoney 665 Object Salmon has recently invested substantially in Kimpton Industrial Park believing that this facility is highly prized by LB Sutton (LBS).

For example, LBS has for many years resisted the sale of freehold interests on the Park. With a very strong policy of granting only long leaseholds and thus retaining the freeholds, it enables LBS to control the uses on the Park towards creating a strong employment area.

The Park is also a Business Improvement District and thus supported by both local and central government policies and finances.

It comes as a great surprise, therefore, that LBS considers a Travellers’ Site to be a suitable use to locate at what is essentially the gateway to the industrial park.

From a town planning perspective, there must be a conflict in putting a residential-type use immediately adjacent to an industrial estate. In highways terms, major problems too will be created between the movements in and out of a Travellers’ site, the Park traffic and the verybusy main A217 trunk road.

As an aside and from a non-business perspective, it is also difficult to understand, for what to the majority of people will be obvious reasons, LBS proposing to locate a use such as a Traveller’s Site immediately adjacent to a cemetery

All-in-all, we would suggest that this proposal has not been thought through with sufficient regard to all of the factors involved.

For the above reasons, we hope that LBS will decide to locate the Travellers’ Site at a location far more appropriate than that of the subject location.


35

Page 1016

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response667 Mrs Esther Connor 668 Object Following the Residents raising objections on Saturday 9th April during your surgery meeting, I firstly want to thank you for allowing us to share our concerns with you and Mr Adrian Davey. I found the information you shared with us helpful and understand how we the Sutton

community can continue to voice our objections to the proposed Travellers site constructively.

I am a resident of the Stonecot Ward and wish to state my objections to the proposal for the transient Travellers site S87.They are as follows:The proposed site is near Kimpton Park Way which is adjacent to Sutton Cemetery. Access to the traveller site may impede on visitors to the cemetery wishing to privately mourn and reflect; disturb funerals taking place, impact on parking to the Sutton Life Centre and increasetraffic that is already heavily congested in that built up area. It is also distasteful to propose this site near to a cemeteryThe site is unsuitable for development as the surrounding area it is too built up, close to the main road and has an electricity pylon above it. As I understand it,none of these fulfil the criteria needed to be conducive to the health of the traveller familiesSutton Council as I understand it has a duty of care to ensure all children within the borough attend a local school and receive full- time education. Children of transient Travellers will I assume in most cases need to be awarded a 'Statement' in the form of an Individual EducationPlan (IEP) awarded to them by the borough to receive additional support for help with their education. This costs a great deal of money and with pupils already in the system whose parents have had to fight long waiting lists just to have their child assessed for a statement, it willbe grossly unfair to these familiesSchools in the surrounding area are already over subscribed with long waiting lists for children who were in most cases born in the areaOur GP surgeries and Hospitals serving the ever growing population to the area have already overstretched their capacity to treat patientsThe proposal for a sports Multi Use Game Area (MUGA) site and facility is as I see it far more beneficial and undoubtedly needed to serve the local community for their sports activities. Over subscribed schools and local football teams desperately need this site.I hereby give my permission for my name and objections to be forwarded to Sutton Council Planning Policy division.


668 Sam Kemp 669 Object I wish to register my protest against the council plans to set up a travellers site in the Kimpton Estate area. As a resident of the area for over 30 years I believe this would have a significantly detrimental impact on the local community, house prices and local businesses.

I object strongly to this plan and am keen to see the proposals stopped as a matter of urgency.


670 Susan Matthews 671 Object I am writing to notify you of my objection to the proposed travellers site at Site number 87- Land North of Kimpton Park Way.

I was very concerned to hear that this plot is even being considered for a potential travellers site as I believe that this site is completely unsuitable for members of the travelling community for the following reasons:

Cemetery- the site proposed is directly next Sutton Cemetery. I find the potential of a travellers site being placed here to be very disrespectful. This land should be held back for the inevitable overflow of burial ground.

Road Safety/Road Access - Road access to the site is via an extremely busy “A Road”, where there have been a number of accidents over the years. Adding additional turning traffic here as well as the potential for playing children and escaped animals gaining access to theA217 is a massive concern for the safety of this road.

Schools - The local schools within walking distance of the proposed site are both at full capacity or close to capacity. The money spent developing this land would be much better spent on providing more school places for local residents.

Local Businesses - A site so close to the Kimpton Park industrial estate is a security risk. Many local businesses have already expressed their concern regarding the site and have stated their intentions to move their business should the site go ahead. Loss of this industrial estatecould have a huge effect on employment in the local area.

Doctors- Our local surgeries are already stretched to breaking point. I myself have had to wait 3 weeks to get a non emergency appointment. They simply cannot take the strain of any additional patients.

Consideration must be given to the relationship of sites to the surrounding community. The established community has made it overwhelmingly clear (by petition votes and attendance at public meetings) that they do not want this site forced upon them.

Please register my objection to the potential Gypsy and Traveller site at S87 Kimpton Park Way, for the reasons stated above.

Please also acknowledge by return receipt of my email, confirm that the objections I have raised are valid and will be considered in your consultation process and keep me informed of developments on this matter.


673 brooklyn 674 Object I live in Sutton opposite wickes on the A217. I have recently heard about some planning proposals regarding the corner opposite wickes and plans to turn it into a travellers site. I would I like to express that I oppose to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery.I believe that with that junction already at a high capacity the road (a217) would become increasingly busier and heavily trafficked.The services surrounding the area like schools and hospitals are already at a dangerously high level and there simply isn't enough to cater for it.I know families whose loved ones are buried at Sutton cemetery and having a travelling site right next door is hardly respectful, quiet or nice.There is also the fact of who is going to pay for this? Most likely it's going to be us the taxpayers as I know, that they are not going to pay for it. There are many things in Sutton that rely on funding and the millions spent on this could be used in a far more acceptable manner.Thank you for taking the time to read, please really think about how much of a burden this would be on the surrounding areas and how we simply cannot cater for it.


674 Melanie Gladden 675 Object I am writing to you to oppose against the S87 Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery.

I am disgusted in the first place that you would even consider building a neighbourhood literally on top of a cemetery when the local residents just want peace and quiet when going to visit their families graves.Sutton is such a busy up and coming area and the council have been trying to rejuvenate the area for years and I am afraid this will just bring the area down and attract less people. I have lived in Sutton for 30 years and just purchased my first house literally a stone's throw fromwhen you are proposing this site. I am in no doubt that this would bring the price on my house down and I do not see why my hard earned money should go to waste.The traffic is absolutely horrendous about the A217 and Stonecot hill areas and we have already had a huge new development of flats built where the old guardian house was and now you want to build more homes, the area simply cannot take it.Why can we not just leave some our area green space? How about a modern lovely new playground for Children to go or a skate park to flight against obesity and stop children sitting indoors? The neighbourhood areas around Sutton do not have enough of these.It's hard enough trying to get an appointment in the local doctors and talks of A+E departments being shut down and fewer school places. I understand that everyone needs a place to call home but Sutton does just not have the space or capabilities to cope with an influx ofpeople. Building homes on top of more homes is just going to cause more problems locally and in my mind more anti-social behaviour with everyone living too close. I am sure in the whole of the south that a wider area where the local area will not be hit so hard can be found.

Listen to your local people Sutton Council before its too late.


676 Jemma Fawcett 677 Object I am opposed to proposal S87 the Traveller Site at Sutton Cemetery.

I can list you many reasons why this should not be allowed.

1. Other Traveller site not so far from Sutton are scruffy and unkempt and are an absolute eye sore.

2. I currently live on Oldfields Road and my son has to travel by car to school in Worcester Park. School are already oversubscribed and this will only put more of a strain on our schools.

3. Money has already been spent by the borough to keep Traveller off land where they often camp up. When they leave the area and littered with rubbish which has be cleared away.

4. Sutton Cemetery is a peace beautiful area where I have family laid to rest. To put this site there is disrespectful to the deceased and to family member that often visit there. The area will not be the same!

5. The A217 is already an extremely busy road. The add to this would be a big mistake impacting on those that have already lived there for years!

I'm sure I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. For those that are suggesting the Site goes to this location. I bet you don't live close to this site!? Would you want it on your doorstep!?

If you would like to discuss this matter in more details or for me to attend any community meetings myself and family would be very happy to give you our views.


677 Lewis Woodham 678 Object I wanted to email you with an objection to proposal S87 for the installation of a traveller site.

I am sure you are aware that the pressure on local schools will be immensely increased. This will be an identical scenario with the local Doctor’s surgery and local Hospitals.

Even just these three examples would have a very large negative effect on the local community and all age groups.

I urge to you to put a stop to these plans.


678 Simon Hudson 679 Object My wife and I moved to Sutton Common (Barrington Road) in December and we love the area, neighbours, the community spirit and local shops and amenities.

We have been shocked and very deeply concerned to hear (through neighbours) about the plans to potentially build a permanent traveller site by the Kimpton Parkway next to the A217. We have had many, many sleepless nights worrying about the impact on the localcommunity, the cemetery, local businesses and schools if this badly thought out proposal goes through.

Aside from the absolutely unbelievable fact that it sounds like existing local taxpayers would be paying for this (!) The area will not be able to cope with the massive drain on local resources, amenities, roads and schools that a new and large community would require. This willonly result in higher maintenance costs for the local council which I am sure budgets do not allow for…given that site cannot be afforded in the first place when other resources have been cut.

Please do not approve this plan, there are many many more essential requirements for improvements in this borough. We have also contacted our local MP Paul Scully, who also have strong concerns about these plans. In fact, he explained that the government policy around a15 year plan for traveller sites for all councils across the land is, at best, unclear. I hope this planning application is not in response to that policy consider: a) we already have 2 permanent traveller sites in the borough and b) no one seems to be fully clear on the governmentpolicy.

Additionally and of great concern, we have heard through local neighbours that a postcard was meant to be put through our letterbox notifying us of this potential planning activity and offering us the opportunity to meet and discuss the plans. WE RECEIVED NO SUCH NOTICE!We only found out about the plans through other neighbours.

Through other emails to our MP and to councillors it appears that a meeting did take place at the Sutton Life Centre. The failure to communicate this to local residents is very serious. My wife and I and other neighbours would have certainly attended to have our voices heard. Toeach of you as individuals reading this I ask directly… if this potential planning and impact on the local community was 300 metres from your home- how would you feel about not being notified about the plan or the meeting??

I am 34 and have spent my entire adult life saving to buy a home for my wife and I. We chose Sutton Common for many reasons and love living here. PLEASE, I urge you please don’t approve these plans by the Kimpton Parkway, it will:Put huge strain on the local areaReduce jobs with some businesses already planning to leaveIncrease trafficIncrease council maintenance costsBe incredibly disrespectful to those who visit and have buried loved ones in the cemeteryBe unaffordable in the short term and the long term with invariably high on-going maintenance costsWill take funds from other more essential people and resource needs in the boroughand finally, will rip our lovely community apart!


679 Lisa Smith 680 Object I Would like to say I am opposed to proposal S87 the travellers site at Sutton Cemetery for the following reasons:· There are not enough school places in Sutton already· Local business will move creating loss of jobs to local people· Costs which the council has no funding causing either hike in council tax or cut of other vital service· Additional Traffic· Currently the walkway/path leading from A217 through to park is used by many local people for walking dogs and joggers.· The cemetery is peaceful area and this would change


36

Page 1017

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response680 Sue Robertson 681 Object I understand that by law you have to provide land for travellers, but I object to you providing it in this peaceful surroundings. I have lived in Sutton all my life and the area around there has improved vastly over the years. To add a travellers site would cause disarray to the area

and cause it to be noisy and unsightly.The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

681 Jemma Pearson 682 Object I would like to register my total objection to the traveller site at Sutton Cemetery.To propose to build this facility on land which should be for future burial needs, is deeply disrespectful and upsetting.Local businesses will look to move out of the area, a dangerous junction near Glenthorne High school will become worse and generally a good family community will suffer.Please take notice from the 4300 (and rising) residents who have already signed the petition against S87.


682 Rebecca Rousseau 683 Object I am writing to oppose the proposed travellers site. As a first time buyer I carefully chose this area to live after a lot of consideration. I know hear this proposal and after speaking to many residents in the local area I do not feel that you have adequately made local residents awaregiving us all the chance to oppose. As you know st helier is already bursting at the steams and I can't believe you are considering adding yet more residents by way of a travellers site. Schools and doctors are over subscribed. How can you consider this? Also as a first time buyerI have struggled to get a deposit, pay bills etc. Why do you not consider building affordable housing for young people instead of a travellers site? Surely this will not benefit the borough at all and just drain already limited resources.

Please accept this email as strong opposition to the proposal. I would also mention that I would never have struggled to buy in this area had I known this would be suggested. I also imagine the value of the properties will decrease which is going to be detrimental to myself andmany other residents. We need more doctors hospitals and schools not a travellers site. Please consider this.


683 Peter Massam 684 Object I would like to object most strenuously to proposal S87 and the proposed traveller site. This is because:

1. We don't have travellers in Sutton. This will therefore encourage them to come in.

2. Traveller sites are normally placed away from housing areas (such as the Lavender Fields). This is in line with their own wishes to remain detached from mainstream society.

3. Our own council supplied services are already under enough strain.


685 Sandra McAllister 686 Object I am writing this letter to protest at the proposed travellers site. This is the wrong place in Sutton for this site. can you not see how disrespectful this is going to be for love ones who visit the cemetery the noise etc. The local schools, hospital, doctors can not cope. Business havesaid they will leave. There are other sites in sutton this one should not be the one for the travellers. I am a ratepayer who should have a voice.


686 ysanne jenkins 687 Object I am contacting you to voice my opposition to proposal S87. I am outraged that the council is considering placing a travellers site at the cemetery.This area is supposed to where loved ones are buried and relatives and friends can come to grieve and remember them.I am one of those relatives and I take exception that this is being allowed to happen - it's even adjacent to the children's area. I go to visit my baby nephew and I am appalled that a travellers site will be next to his grave.I ask you to stop this proposal and let families continue to grieve in peace.


688 Laura Wilcock 689 Object Re the above. I am writing to raise my concerns for this site. The areas planned will cause congestion in an already busy area with the dump and newly extended industrial estate which has supplied jobs to the area. Also the nature reserve in the area would be at risk from thearea becoming residential. Near the cemetery I believe access would be restrictive and possible cause delays on an already busy traffic light system from the 217. Also it may have a major effect on the local library community centre as many people may be deterred from using it.I appreciate sites are required but mixing residential with an industrial site or the dead doesn't seem a sensible option. I am sure it would affect the businesses and the surrounding communities' insurances.


690 Steven Potter 691 Object Both my parents are buried in Sutton cemetery and I work on a daily basis in kimpton link I don't personally feel that this is the place for a traveller site .... And would like to express that I'm opposed to this proposal The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

692 Julie James 693 Object I am writing to express my objection to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site. There has not been enough time for people to have been informed about this, it seems to have been kept contained to the immediate area yet it will affect the whole of this section of the borough and shouldbe more widely discussed before a decision is made.. The area has only just become more rejuvenated after years of neglect, surely the site will have a negative effect on further development? Access is limited and there will be problems with traffic which is already difficult at thissection of the road. There will be an impact on property prices, local education and health provision. The proposed site is very close to a primary school which is already under pressure. What about sanitation/ refuse/ utilities on the site? Once established it will be extremelydifficult to change and I don't feel there have been sufficient investigations made into the future of the site.Finally, this edge of the borough is very close to the Ahmiddya Mosque in Morden which is under threat from the mainstream Muslim community. Putting another minority community so close seems a potentially dangerous plan.


694 Christine Bunn 695 Object Please reconsider this site for travellers. There are not enough school places for the children already in the borough. The site is totally unsuitable because it is in the same place as the cemetery and surely this is very unfair for people who have their loved ones buried thereespecially as the entrance is at the cemetery gates. Are the council going to compensate us for the loss on our property prices. Could a site not be placed where there is social housing where property prices would not be affected? I thought the council were short of moneybearing in mind when a request was made for yellow lines to be painted at the end of Sherborne Road because cars parking there prevent the dust cart from getting through and any of the emergency service vehicles we were told the council didn't have the money! What aboutthe cost of clearing up after the travellers and r they going to pay council tax, electricity and water rates? The whole idea is ludicrous so please reconsider.


696 Nicola Evans 697 Object I am writing to you to raise my concerns about the proposal in the 2031 plans for the Sutton Borough to provide a permanent travellers site.

Firstly I oppose the idea that funding should be given for this purpose when there are more important issues that should be addressed first. Housing should be provided and prioritised to the vulnerable-young families with children, elderly and people with disabilities both mentaland physical.

Secondly, the proposal of the kimpton travellers site as the permanent site is not acceptable. It is in the middle of a built up area which is already overwhelmed with traffic from the nearby A217, traffic coming into Tesco and the Refuse site.

It would be next to Sutton cemetery which shows no respect for the bereaved, I understand burials will continue in the future.

School places both primary and secondary are already over subscribed and this would affect the current families in the surrounding area. As would the availability for GP practices and spaces for new patients.

Properties in the area would lose value on their homes and businesses on the kimpton industrial site are very likely to move. This would incur job losses.

I cannot see anything positive in this proposal.


697 Chris.Traynor 698 Object I would like to raise my concerns over the proposal for the traveller site at Sutton cemetery. At present we not only have a shortage of schools in the area but a shortage of school teachers, so if this site were to go ahead and the children in the new site got into local schools thiswould be victimisation to the local families who are waiting for places in their local schools, and I believe these families can take the decision maker to court on these grounds. This is just one argument of many let alone the paying for the civil's and utility feeds as this cannotcome out of the tax payers monies.

I ask you to seriously think about the decision of this site as the local effect on schools and hospitals will push our services over the edge.


698 Alison Raine 699 Object I am writing to express my objection to the placement of a 'traveller's site' in Sutton.We already have a real problem finding places for school age children in our schools and to impose a whole community on our doorstep would add additional pressure on an already stretched facility.

Having recently needed to use the NHS A and E service at St Helier for my elderly mother I can add that this service is also under great strain. She is 84 and suffers from Alzheimer's Disease. She was discharged at 00.45am as there wasn't a bed for her. She was later admitted24 hours later.

My daughter in law gave birth 3 weeks ago and there seemed to be similar strains on the maternity service. Her experience was much less than perfect.

I am seriously concerned that introducing a ready made community without planning ahead for the required services is a recipe for disaster.

These people need a site that is purpose built with all the necessary amenities and services in place. Sutton, in my mind, does not fit that criteria.


701 S Barber 702 Object Please reconsider the planning for the travelers site in Sutton. The area is already busy and would add to extra traffic congestion.Its very close proximity to cemetery - hope that people visiting the cemetery have been considered in relation to noise (and maybe rubbish being dumped).


707 Mrs Walker 708 Object My parents do not have access to email and are getting increasingly concerned about the proposed travellers site. I understand that the deadline of 8th April 2016 has passed, but to alleviate their distress I promised to email you to voice their concern.

They have lived in Sutton in the same property since being married. They back onto the Kimpton estate (they live in Ridge Road) and are concerned for a variety of reasons including that of feeling confident and safe in their area. They feel that it is reduced in quality and declinedover the years, the changes that they have seen could not be described as positive and this is the last thing that they wish for the local community.

They feel like they are being pushed out of a place they have lived in and invested in for over forty years. They want to feel secure in the place that they live.

They urge you to reconsider the travellers site, and they wish you to know that they are wholly opposed to it.


710 Sean Smith 711 Object I strongly oppose the proposed travellers site at Sutton Cemetery.The infrastructure can not cope with 194 new families.Doctors, Dentists, hospitals etc already have excessive waiting times, which will increase with 194 new families.The local schools are already oversubscribed, and can't cope with hundreds of new children.The roads in that area and on to / off the industrial estate are already congested with significant queues at peak times.If the entrance is by the Cemetery entrance that would be very disrespectful and inconvenient to funeral processions and visitors.After spending a fortune on the linear park, which now provides a nice dog walking and jogging area, and picnic area in the summer, you now propose disturbing it and ruining it.It will be detrimental to the expanding industrial complex, which will surely see reduced take up on new units and leases and be detrimental to the borough and employment opportunities.


712 Marian Smith 713 Object I object to the proposed travellers site at Sutton Cemetery for the following reasons:

1. A sudden influx of 1000 people will overload the infrastructure. ie; schools, dentists, hospitals,doctors, etc

2.As a ratepayer, I do not want money spent on a traveller site

3.Such a site next to a cemetery is totally disrespectful

4.There will be lots more traffic on an already congested area

5.My friends and neighbours will no longer be able to walk our dogs in what has become a designated dog walking area.

Hopefully, this proposal will fail.


714 Mrs A Hedges 715 Object I am writing to propose S87 the travelers site that is to be put next to the Sutton cemetery. I have lived in Sutton for over 30 years and have many loved ones buried at the cemetery. Having travellers next to the cemetery is very disrespectful. I think it is a disgrace that Suttoncouncil who we pay very high council tax to can even consider this.

Also we all struggle to get doctors appointments already and there are a shortage of school places for our children this could only get worse not to mention the traffic along the A217 which is at gridlock during rush hour.

I feel very sorry for the companies along the Kimpton estate that will no longer feel safe


37

Page 1018

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response715 Mr and Mrs Goodall 716 Object We object strongly to this site, to put it next to a place where people go to visit the graves of their love ones and want peace and quiet Next to a primary school, with all the noise and disruption it will bring. Next to a business park, this will not encourage new businesses or

customers to the area. By the side of one of the busiest roads in London adding to volume of traffic. Putting more pressure on already crowded local Doctors and our local hospital. Sutton Council it is wrong wrong wrong we want this area to remain as a pleasant place to live aplace where people want to move to and work YOU are spoiling this area.


717 Philip Redman 718 Object I find the proposal to built a 194 permanent hard standing site totally undemocratic. As a resident of Barrington Road, I have never been informed or been party to this proposal. It seems ludicrous to even contemplate this idea when the basic infrastructure is not there.

The first consideration before any such proposal should be ‘Can the area cope with this additional demand’. To clarify why I think NOT, I have identified several keys areas that I consider have been ignored.

School:It's obvious to anyone, that the answer is NO. Not only are the primary schools oversubscribed but also Glenthorpe school which has already had additional new buildings built (just to cope with the existing demand) would be placed back where it was five years ago.

Buses:The bus routes are poor and the actual links between buses is far from satisfactory. The number 80 has only just been up-graded to 15 minutes whereas the 470 only runs every half hour, finishes at 9 and doesn’t even run on a Sunday. To compound this situation, there is nodirect bus from Oldfield Road to Morden other than having to useeither the 80 or 470, which is a poor and inefficient route to Morden.

Hospitals:The nearest Hospital for this area is St Heller, which has already been identified as poorly resourced and over stretched. As to the rumours that it might even be closed or reduced in size seem to have been ignored by this proposal. However hard the staff work, the actualcondition of the building is poor. To bring it into the 21st century, anextensive building schedule would have to be undertaken and in the present economic climate, this is unlikely.

Doctors:Having lived in this area for over five years, I am acutely aware of NOT being able to see the doctor on the day I need. In some cases, I have had to wait a full week before I can get an appointment. It is totally unacceptable and not of the doctors making but more to do with thedemands placed on them by the existing residence.

Waste Disposal:As the council has already made cuts in this area, how does it plan to facilitate the extra demands that will be placed on this service if this proposal goes through? Recycle waste, is now only collected every two weeks, whereas ‘Green Waste’ is not collected at all. Does thecouncil intend to make the collection of domestic waste every two weeks to help in this additional demand?

Please respond to the above areas of concern with valid and realistic answers.


718 K Andrews 719 Object I wish to express my concern at the proposal of a new traveller site located near to Kempton industrial estate.This is a relatively new development in the borough and the businesses located there have threatened to move to different locations resulting in job losses . This is notwhat Sutton needs.We need more jobs. I appreciate it is necessary for land to 'be found for a new traveller site but surely there must be other less densely populated areas within the borough rather than the proposed site.


721 Sue Butcher 722 Object I am opposed to Proposal S87, the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery. As a council tax payer i don't see why a have to fund this proposal. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

722 Cheryl Bignell 723 Object I feel it's is disgraceful that the council would consider putting a traveler site alongside the cemetery, when people using the cemetery are at their most emotional and distressed burying their loved ones. Would you want to spend time tending your loved one's grave without peaceand tranquility deserving of such a moment in time. Without the ground that is designated for the expansion of the cemetery the residents of Sutton will no longer have somewhere within the borough to bury their loved ones. I am concerned about businesses leaving the tradingestate and the loss of irreplaceable local employment, how does the council propose to replace the income from business tax and provide replacement employment? Has anyone actually asked the families on the current traveler site who are overcrowded where they want thespace to live? As a culture extended families remain in a hierarchical.Community and remain within the same site because of the culture for part of the family's are unlikely to want to decide from one side of the borough to the other. The site will be lived on by new family's not providing space for current and predicted overcrowding on the currentsite.Please accept this email as opposition to the proposal S87.


724 Samantha Cammock 725 Object I would like to voice my objection to proposal S87 - the travellers site at Sutton Cemetery.

I do not want a travellers site at the end of my road and right next to a peaceful cemetery, I find it disrespectful that this is even being considered.

We have had to put up with years of upheaval while the industrial estate was being built at a vast cost to us all living in the borough. It is now starting to pay dividends so why would you put this at risk. What about local businesses - some businesses are already looking to move ifthis proposal happens. Would they stay in the borough? What about the jobs that they provide for local people - would they be lost?

There is already too much traffic at this busy junction - extra traffic is not what we need in this area. Two proposals were made for access to the site. Off the Kimpton Park Way way on the Kimpton estate right opposite the road down to Tesco's , or the second option is accessright next to the cemetery entrance itself. This is ridiculous and completely unacceptable.

I understand that quotes are in excess of 1 million pounds of which the council has no funding. So who would be paying for this??? Us the residents. We are already facing a hike in our council tax - is the council tax going to increase again or would you cut some other vitalservice.

This proposal is unacceptable and I would like the thoughts of the residents to be taken into consideration. You need to understand how strongly we all feel about this issue.


727 Stephen.Franklin 728 Object There is no reason for the travellers to b anywhere near the sutton cemetery The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

728 Mr & Mrs Williams 729 Object I am writing to you to formally oppose the proposal for a travellers site to be located at Sutton Cemetery in Kimpton Way (Proposal S87).

Myself and my husband are opposed to this for several reasons:1) It would increase and add to the traffic and congestion around the area.2) It would impact the green space in the area.3) It would impact on access to the cemetery4) It would make the area unsafe and dirty - I have seen what has happened to the area near Beddington that already houses a travellers site.

In addition I am very upset that the council has not notified residence of this proposed travellers site, unless you regularly visited the Sutton council website and studied the recent documents you would not have known this was planned. I am shocked that the council does notconsult on such issues, yet the information around the development of the site at the bottom of Sutton High Street towards Sutton Common was well publicised. These kind of plans should also be widely available to the residence of Sutton, not just those that visit the Suttoncouncil website on a regular basis.


730 Heidi Woodham 731 Object I should like to object in writing to the proposal number S87 to site a fixed Travellers site near Kimpton Road. I have an interest in the area as I lived in Abbotts Road for 10 years and now my daughter lives in Whittaker Road, near to the proposed site.

My objections are based on the pressure this will put on the infrastructure in the area. I am concerned that schools, hospitals and other amenities will not cope with the added influx of users.

There is no responsibility on Sutton council to house travellers.


732 Chen Emily 733 Object Please stop the traveler site, the benefits comparing the reverent side-effects from Kimpton traveler site will be very huge, please do not put all sutton residents into dangerous conditions. As the following effects, the business within this area going to be shrink, and the wholesociety will getting lower, could you please consider, does our council can afford that much or not? Please stop it!!!!!!!


733 Jaci Hubbard 734 Object Sutton Cemetery is visited by family members who wish to pay their respects, remember and reflect on their lost loved ones and the thought of having a travellers site there is totally disrespectful.

A travellers site would also bring additional traffic to what is already a busy road through Kimpton Road.

As the cemetery is guided by The Charter for the Bereaved issued by the Institute of Cemetery and Cremation Management, I cannot understand or accept that the London Borough of Sutton would even contemplate the plans for the travellers site as this would surely go againstthe Caring of the Community

There are many other places within the borough that are more suitable, and I am sure that the travellers themselves would not want to be so close to a part of the community that wants and deserves to remain quiet, approachable and accessible for the residents of the borough tocontinue to lay their loved ones to rest in a cemetery that has been established since 1881.

I would also like answers as to why the community have not been approached by the council, its members of parliament that we the constituents who vote for them have not asked our opinion and why it is being kept as a closely guarded secret


737

Margaret Hunt

738 Object I wish to reject travellers site at sutton cemetery ref S87 it is disrespectful to even think about putting it there. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

738

Alan eade

739 Object I must object to proposal S87 the Travellers site at Sutton Cemetery, this site will de-value all property in the surrounding area including my own home, the peace and quite we expect to find in the cemetery will be gone for ever, this will be an insult to the dead, i also understandthat the Cemetery is almost full, if there is spare land close by, this should be added to the Sutton Cemetery so that those of us still alive will have some where to rest in peace when the time comes.


740 Steven Turner 741 Object Being along side the cemetery where people go to mourn there loved ones

Turning right on to Sutton common road while leaving Alcorn close will cause major traffic issues being so close to the traffic lights

The local schools would not be able to handle any more children when places are all ready over subscribed

The value of surrounding dwellings will be affected...I think you the planning team should rethink this as you clearly need to address this situation


742 Karen Keating 743 Object I am opposed to Proposal S87 the Travellers Site at Sutton Cemetery as I find it hugely disrespectful to the dead and their families and loved ones.I don't believe my hard earned money should go towards people who don't pay tax or contribute the society.That part of Sutton has had massive building work and is finally starting to look nice.Why blight us all with dumped rubbish and trouble ?


743 Mr and Mrs Saddler 744 Object This is about the Site Proposed for Kimpton Estate in Sutton. Its so busy around here, what with Tesco. I do not think it would work out. This is a very busy area on the A217 and often the roads are clogges up. Do you think this would be fair on us Residents. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

744 Mr Oleg Karpun 745 Object Please count my voice against proposal S87 (consultation question Consultation Question 12a/b) : Traveller Site at Kimpton Park Way.I don't think Sutton borough need spend more money on this.


746 Mr Barry O'Callaghan 747 Object I would like to voice my objection to this proposed Travellers Site. This area is used extensively by walkers and is a busy road especially at weekends. It would add considerably to traffic in the area and isn’t a feasible solution for people to live in – eg no water supply etc The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

38

Page 1019

Agenda Item

5

Consultee ID Consultee Name Comment ID Nature of Response Comment Officer Response747 Ms Paula White 748 Object There has been 4,371 supporters on line for this petition plus 450 e-mails and letters to Sutton council so we should be proud that the people of Sutton and surrounding areas are concerned about the local community and the way it affects every walks off life. right down to the

youngest to the older generation, this will affect so much of peoples life

schools places for the younger generation to comeHospitals/ doctors getting a appointment or even surgery timeshouse prices for the surrounding areacongestion from the sitethe cemetery near byroad usewe should have a say in the way this piece of land is to be used, i hope we have a voice not just the council


614 Ms MargaretSouthgate

751 Object I do not agree that a new site be located directly alongside Sutton Cemetery. This would most certainly have a very adverse impact on the local environment and the character of the area. Despite its proximity to the A217 the cemetery is an oasis of peace and tranquility wherethe bereaved can grieve for their loved ones. The proposed entrance to the site would be directly alongside the cemetery gates bringing considerably more traffic and noise to the area. Demand on local services, particularly schools and health services are already extremelyhigh, with not enough school places for the existing population, and so any additional residents would put even greater demands on these services.The site itself does not readily lend itself to this use as the council would also incur additional costs to terrace the site to give level ground for caravans, together with the cost of providing essential services (electricity, gas, water, sewerage, waste disposal etc).The site was clearly originally intended as an additional burial area for the cemetery and if this is not now its intended use then it could be used for the burial of ashes for those who would find the site more accessible than any of the local crematoria. This would be much more inkeeping with the area.


748 Lee Bogle 752 Object I am against developing a site behind Sutton cemetery for gypsy and travellers accommodation on account that all the services of schools , GP's and hospitals are already struggling to cope and are at creaking stage! The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

749 Nisha 753 Object Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation- I'm opposing for Kimpton Park way accommodation.This area is already crowded and if you approved more of gypsy it will be a mess And there is a cemetery close by,it needs to be a calm place. there are lots of elderly people living in this area and they will be disturbed and will affect there life.

Please stop this plan. Look for some other sites with less disturbance.


750 Mary Evans 754 Object The proposed site near Kimpton Road is completely unsuitable. The cemetery is a place that needs to be quiet and there needs to be respect shown for bereaved families and friends and as a place of reflection for those visiting. How can this happen if the traveller site is built soclose there would inevitably be noise and movement of people and vehicles. The local primary school is full so any children would have to be bused elsewhere. Also people go to their allotments for peace and quiet as well as to grow produce. The value of local houses wouldcertainly decrease. There would be an increase in local traffic.


356 Lyn Jenkins 755 Object NoObject to s87 potential gypsy/traveller siteKimpton Way. Have written to planning department


751 Hazel Collins 756 Object No I do not agree with the draft policy on the new proposed site in Kimpton Road as I feel this area is already built up and there is already too much traffic with Tescos, the warehouses and the dump. I do not feel that Kimpton Road has enough area and is not the right place tosite the gypsy community.


752 Ms Alice Roberts,Green SpacesCampaigner, CPRELondon

757 Object We do not support the option of developing this area as a Gypsy and Traveller site. This land should be retained as MOL and should only be developed in such a way that fulfils its designation as Land Safeguarded For Burial Space or Open Space.• The need to provide accommodation does not constitute an exceptional circumstance and is not a justifiable criterion for de-designation.• If the council were to designate the land as a Gypsy and Traveller site this would remove the possibility of it being returned to open green land in the future• It would also risk potential encroachment on surrounding green space and parks, including Kimpton Linear Park in future.


753 Mr Derek Coleman,Sutton Group of theLondon Wildlife Trust

758 Object We consider that possible future uses for this site should be restricted to burial use and open space;the description that the land is vacant is not entirely accurate since a path from the Kimpton LinearPark already runs through the site. This site is a much smaller area of a larger area of MOL17. TheGreen Belt review considers that although ‘not fulfilling the functions of MOL particularly well’ parts‘should be protected’. We would like to see the whole area protected and object to any loss.


754 Mr Ray Liffen,Treasurer,Carshalton-on-the-HillResidents'Association

759 Object We do not support the release of this land. For reasons, see answer to 12b The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

755 Julie Halsey 760 Object I believe that the area cannot sustain a travellers site. Sutton is already short of school places and gp surgeries. With the current number of permanent developments already under way & the lack of planning for new schools, and infrastructure to support these, the situation isonly going to get worse.Furthermore the proposed site is next to sutton cemetery, which should be a tranquil resting place for loved ones, any development on this site, other than further burial grounds would be distressing & unfair on family members whose loved ones are buried there.


371 Neil Pearson 761 Object I do not agree. This is a way of life that should not be thrust upon local family communities living a conventional life. It would seem Sutton Council is also working outside of Government framework. At a time of cuts to local services, what resources there are should not be put intoa policy / standpoint of expanding Traveller sites. It is a shocking vision of Sutton 2031.


681 Jemma Pearson 762 Object Kimpton Park Way - S87 should not go ahead.

It should be land reserved for the cemetery and is disrespectful to all those whom have loved ones within Sutton cemetery.

The site would ruin a good family area and deter visitors to the business park, Sutton life centre and the Harvester PH.

A dangerous junction would become even more so and Glenthorne School would no doubt have to take traveller children when there is a storage of school places for local children.

I am against my taxes funding this when they should be better spent.As above - Kimpton Park Way is totally unsuitable and should not happen.


757 Mr Gary Cottell 764 Object Kimpton Road Gypsy Site -masny reasons , main there is a cemetry which people bury loved ones , why bring potential anti social issues into the AREANeed to be where no local existing community


356 Lyn Jenkins 765 Object S87 object to use of land as Gypsy and Travellor site, letter written to planning department listing reasons. The council will undertake further work on makingprovision to meet the future needs of Gypsies andTravellers in the borough.

39

Page 1020

Agenda Item

5

Documents

Appendix B – Formal Representations Schedule for Site 87 (Land