Object

Representation ID: 1768

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

I object for the reasons below:

1. there are already more travellers than that proposed and no controlof enforcement is made.

2. the Navestock community requires the council to provide all the community with fair and equal treatment, this should include making sure the lifestyle enjoyed by Brentwood equal in all areas.

3. We already have far more than our share of travellers provision and crays hill should be enough of a warning to lack of enforcement!

Object

Representation ID: 1771

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

I object to the Traveller provisions in the plan the gb is diminishing due to being tarmaced over.

Object

Representation ID: 1775

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

Brentwood Councils first priority must be to regain control of the current situation and remedy the complete disregard of planning rules and laws. That means getting rid of the illegal sites. Only then provision should be addressed. BBC must get its priorites right!

Object

Representation ID: 1776

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

My objections are based on the following:

1. Danger to motorists on a daily basis
2. The stench from stagnant water as a result of the brook/ stream being blocked by concrete access paths is disgusting.
3. constant police presence beause of drugs, guns, etc. causes disharmony and distress to law abiding citizens.
4. I strongly contest the word traveller as the homes now sited cannot be moved.

After Dale Farm it is disappointing and also questionable why the councillors are supporting this? BBC seems to be dividing the status between Navestock and Warley side of the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 1783

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

The sites being considered destroy the gb by tarmacing and a paving over what was agricultural use on the land. Our village is being destroyed by travellers sites. We have to cope with huge amount of rubbish dumped in our lanes, sewage in our ditches , the destruction of SSSIs. The councils plan will do nothing to stop this.

The councils count of current travellers pitches is wrong. it is well known that the travellers community outnumber the settled community. The treatment of travellers cannot be to the detriment of others. Sites in Navestock do not meet the stated criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 1784

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

I object to the travellers provision because:

1. our quite village is being destroyed by all the traveller sites
2. they are intimidating and the ditch near the sites stinks of sewage.
3. the sites do not meet the stated criteria

Object

Representation ID: 1785

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

At Navestock Village we expereince alot of flytipping which has increased as the traveller community has gotten bigger.

Object

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

The local community and countryside are being destroyed by traveller sites. They pay no attention to the law. Seweage in ditches, flytipping, intimidation. If you bothered to count the number of pitches you would realise they exceed the legal amount.

Object

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

1. We already have more than enough official traveller sites in Brentwood and definately in Navestock
2. GB land has been ruined and looks awful
3. an increase in flytipping in country lanes
4. an increase in car crime and theft
5. violence and use of weapons well documented on sites in Brentwood

Object

Representation ID: 1788

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: C/O Navestock Parish Council

We would like to express our strong objection to this policy.
1. Already they have exceeded their allocated area on Goatswood Road corner of HorsemanSide Navestock.
2. the sites being considered destroy the GB by tarmacking and paving over agricultural land which was not meant to be bf.
3. the sites considered do not meet the stated criteria
4. our village has been destoyed by gypsy and traveller sites. we have to cope with increased rubbish, seweage and intimidation of the community
5. they destroy the adjacent SSSI an trespass wherever they want
6. the councils pitch count is wrong.