Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Maidstone Borough Key Diagram

64. However, the provision of culturally appropriate accommodation must also consider the location of existing communities, as well as the availability of suitable, deliverable land for accommodating future needs.
     
65. Historically, Gypsies and Travellers would travel to Maidstone borough for work in agriculture, often seasonally hop picking. This lead to a pattern of growth in sites in more rural locations, outside of the defined settlements. These locations are also more generally suited to the keeping of horses, and offer sufficient space for the stationing and manoeuvring of caravans.
     
66. Whilst the Council's preference is to provide pitches and plots in the most sustainable locations aligned to the Settlement Hierarchy, the reality is that in many cases, additional pitches are likely to be provided within or nearby to existing sites (directly from where the need arises). These are mostly in the south of the borough outside of settlement boundaries. Further, the sites that have been submitted to the Council for consideration for future accommodation provision are also located within the Countryside and not within existing settlements.
     
67. With such a high needs for additional sites in the borough and few options in terms of available land put forward for this type of development, the spatial strategy is – and will continue to be – largely dictated by the location of existing sites and available land for new sites across the borough.

Maidstone Town Centre and Urban Area

68. Whilst Maidstone Town Centre and Urban Area are the largest most sustainable locations for development, with access to a wide range of services, facilities and public transport options; there are currently no existing sites in these locations. The closest existing site to Maidstone Urban Area is the publicly owned Coldharbour Lane site in neighbouring Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.
     
69. No sites were submitted to the Council for consideration of this type of development in this location. Therefore no land can be considered 'available' for allocation to help meet the identified accommodation needs. Policy TR7 – accommodation on non-allocated sites would allow 'windfall' applications for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites in this location to be assessed.

Garden Settlements and Strategic Development Location

70. The new settlements of Heathlands and Lidsing are expected to provide mixed and balanced communities, with a range of housing types and tenures, as set out in the respective Local Plan Review policies (LPRSP4(a) and LPRSP4(b)). However, no further details are included within the LPR policies to dictate exact development requirements.

71. At this stage, the potential of Heathlands and Lidsing to accommodate new site(s) (in addition to retaining or re-providing any existing sites) is being explored through the preparation of the Supplementary Planning Documents. However it is noted that any potential new sites could only be delivered in the longer term, as the communities are built out. Further, Policy TR7 – accommodation on non-allocated sites would allow 'windfall' applications for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites in these locations to be assessed.

72. Invicta Park Barracks strategic development location is in an urban location at the edge of Maidstone Town Centre. Unlike the Garden Settlements policies, the Local Plan Review policy LPRSP5(b) does not explicitly require a range of house types and tenures, although this would be assessed under the separate LPRSP10(A) – Housing Mix policy. Invicta Park Barracks is a unique site in the plan with many challenges associated with brownfield redevelopment of a former military site, with additional heritage and environmental constraints.

Rural Service Centres

73. The borough's six Rural Service Centres (RSCs) are considered to be highly sustainable settlements in Maidstone's settlement hierarchy. The RSCs play a key part in the economic and social fabric of the borough and contribute towards its character and built form.
     
74. The RSCs will continue to be focal points where improved infrastructure and the strategic location of new development will reduce the need to travel and will help to maintain and improve on the range of essential local services and facilities.
     
75. The Local Plan Review does not allocate any gypsy and traveller sites within the RSC settlement boundaries; however it currently allocates the following four sites within an approximate 400 metre radius of the settlement boundary:

• GT1(3) Land at Blossom Lodge, Stockett Lane, Coxheath
• GT1(5) Kilnwood Farm, Old Ham Lane, Lenham
• GT1(7) The Paddocks, George Street and GT1(8) Bluebell Farm, George Street, Staplehurst

These are to be reviewed and, where appropriate, carried forward in this Plan – see policy TR4.

Larger Villages

76. The borough's four Larger Villages (LVs) are comparatively less sustainable locations than the Urban Area and RSCs for meeting the borough's development needs. As such, they are considered suitable locations for limited new development only, provided that it is of a scale in keeping with their role, character and size. An appropriate increase in population would also help to support village services and facilities.
     
77. Similar to the RSCs, all four LVs have different characteristics and there is variation in the limited range of services and facilities they provide.
     
78. The Local Plan Review does not allocate any gypsy and traveller sites within the Larger Village settlement boundaries or within a 400 metre radius of the Larger Villages.

The Countryside

79. The borough is predominantly rural, with much of the rural landscapes being of high quality as well as containing valuable agricultural and ecological resources. The countryside has an intrinsic rural character and beauty that should be conserved and protected for its own sake. However, national policy acknowledges that there is also a need to support certain development in the countryside where it contributes to maintaining a prosperous rural economy^[19] and to maintaining mixed communities.
     
80. The borough's existing gypsy and traveller sites and site allocations are located within the countryside, for many reasons including economic activity and land availability. Generally, it is the preference of both the travelling and settled communities to have sites located close to but not within existing settlements.
     
81. The Local Plan Review allocates the following sites in the countryside, beyond a 400 metre radius of existing settlement boundaries:

• GT1(1) The Kays, Heath Road, Linton
• GT1(2) Greenacres (Plot 5), Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea
• GT1(4) Rear of Granada, Lenham Road, Headcorn
• GT1(6) 1 Oak Lodge, Tilden Lane, Marden
• GT1(9) Flips Hole, South Street Road, and GT1(10) The Ash, Yelsted Road, Stockbury
• GT1(11) Neverend Lodge, Pye Corner, Ulcombe

These are to be reviewed and where appropriate carried forward in this Plan – see policy TR4.

Other key constraints to the spatial strategy

82. Further to the Settlement Hierarchy, there are other key physical constraints that will affect where accommodation needs can be met. National Landscapes, Ancient Woodland, Green Belt, high flood risk areas, ecology and heritage assets all constrain development locations and must be considered when formulating the spatial strategy.

Green Belt

83. Approximately 1.3% of Maidstone borough is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt. Nationally and locally, great importance is attached to the Green Belt and development within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate except in 'very special circumstances'. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
     
84. However, national policy^[20] is also clear the development of homes in the Green Belt would not be regarded as inappropriate where, among other things, the proposal is on 'grey belt land' (see glossary) and there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. This specifically means where there is a lack of a five-year supply of deliverable pitches.
     
85. Whilst no potential new sites have been presented to the Council for consideration of this type of development within the Green Belt, there are a number of existing sites within the Green Belt – some of which have an identified need for additional pitches. Their ability to deliver new pitches will be assessed in accordance with the national policy on Green Belt.

Flood Zones

86. To support the future resilience of communities and to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, national policy seeks to avoid inappropriate new development in areas at risk of flooding. This is achieved through application of the Sequential Test and, if necessary, the Exceptions Test. Caravans and mobile homes intended for permanent residential use are classified as 'highly vulnerable'^[21] and are not permitted in Flood Zones 3a or 3b. An Exception Test is required for sites in Flood Zone 2. This creates complexities on some existing sites within Flood Zones 2 and 3 where accommodation needs have been identified, as the Council could not necessarily allocate in Flood Zone 3 and should ideally not allocate in Flood Zone 2 if there are alternative sites. Detailed discussions with the Environment Agency and site specific Flood Risk Assessments may be necessary where – in exceptional circumstances – allocations are proposed in these locations.