Travellers – Writing to my MP

I don’t often write to my MP, and I go public even less often. This petition needed a proper response.

Scully Traveller petition.jpeg







So this is mine.

Scully Traveller response





If Paul Scully is your MP and you feel the same way, feel free to use my letter as a template.



Travellers – Writing to my MP — 2 Comments

  1. I thought it would only be fair to post the reply – not from my MP, but from Elliot Colburn, Mr Scully’s Parliamentary Assistant, and promoter of the petition. I will point out the reverse of the petition was used to call for people to become Conservative party local councillors, and complain about the Lib-Dem council record. Draw your own conclusions.

    “Thank you for your email about Paul’s petition against a Traveller site at Kimpton Park. Paul has asked me to get back to you on this.

    First of all, thank you for your kind words about Paul.

    I must apologise if you got the impression from the leaflet that this campaign is borne out of prejudice against Travellers or in ignorance of the government’s guidelines on site provision. I can assure you this is not the case. I also apologise for the oversight in capitalising the word ‘Traveller’.

    Nor is it the case that the campaign is based on a flat objection to Traveller sits as a point in principle.

    Restraints of leaflet word counts leave little room for more in depth detail of the ins and outs of things like this, but I am happy to explain in more detail to you.

    The objection Paul has to this site is for several reasons. The primary reason is it’s location, backing onto Sutton Cemetery and Kimpton Park Way. The increase in footfall could disturb the peace of mourners at the Cemetery. The site in question is also home to a storage unit for Sutton’s archaeological finds and a small apprentice training centre, which would be a shame to lose.

    The government does indeed recognise the need for local Councils to assess and make provision for Traveller sites in their areas. This is to be done by developing a Local Plan, which Sutton has done, and in conjunction with consideration of need for other local infrastructure such as housing, schools and health services. Part of Paul’s argument is that Sutton already has a site in Woodmansterne, just south of Carshalton. Judging from what has come out of discussions in Council about this, the Council may not need extra provision once it has taken into account the age and birth rate of those already living in the Borough, as well as the numbers moving in and out. So a site at Kimpton and Roundshaw in Wallington would be well in excess of government requirements.

    Again, having Traveller site provision is not something Paul is against in and of itself, but while we have appropriate provision, there are other more pressing issues facing the Borough in terms of local infrastructure, particularly the school place crisis where we need 500+ new secondary school places by 2020/21, but we haven’t even got planning permission for the first of the two new schools that will be needed to meet demand, let alone got spades in the ground.

    I hope this better explains the reasoning behind the campaign.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.