Question 4: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for safeguarding permitted sites? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
This group are being offered preferential treatment to increase or reorganise pitches once granted. Totally unacceptable
Existing sites should be enhanced, supported and extended if possible.
It is agreed that permitted sites be safeguarded. Nevertheless, and as acknowledged in the policy, there may be occasions when alternative uses of the land is justified.
I disagree with the proposed safeguarding policy because it lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and clear accountability measures. While safeguarding is essential, the policy does not adequately address ongoing compliance with health, safety, and environmental standards. There is insufficient detail on how breaches will be monitored and rectified, leaving permitted sites vulnerable to deterioration and potential harm to surrounding communities. Furthermore, the policy fails to ensure that safeguarding measures are proportionate to the scale of development and local context. A sound policy should include mandatory periodic reviews, transparent reporting, and clear penalties for non-compliance to protect residential amenity and maintain community confidence.
This is all very vague and non specific on numbers and potential impact....!!
No answer given
I object to the proposed policy for safeguarding permitted sites where it applies to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Safeguarding policies are intended to protect sites that are clearly suitable, sustainable and appropriately located for their intended use. In the case of The Brishings, safeguarding the site for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation would entrench a form of development that is unsuitable for its rural countryside setting and would make the harm permanent. Firstly, safeguarding The Brishings would lock in long-term harm to the countryside. The site lies in an open rural area where permanent residential use would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the landscape. By safeguarding the site, the policy would remove future opportunities to reassess whether this location remains appropriate, even if its impacts on landscape character and local amenity become increasingly evident over time. Secondly, safeguarding an unsustainable location runs counter to the plan’s wider objectives. The Brishings is poorly located in relation to services, facilities and public transport. Protecting the site for continued residential use would reinforce car-dependent development in a rural location, which conflicts with the Council’s sustainability and spatial strategy principles. Thirdly, safeguarding The Brishings reduces flexibility in future plan-making. By protecting a site that is not well integrated with nearby settlements, the policy risks limiting the Council’s ability to redirect accommodation provision to more suitable and accessible locations in the future. This approach prioritises permanence over sound planning judgement. For these reasons, I object to the proposed safeguarding policy insofar as it applies to The Brishings. Safeguarding this site would entrench inappropriate development in the countryside and undermine the credibility and sustainability of the overall plan.
No answer given
The Brishings plot of land ref policy C4S (017) The Brishings is absolutely ridiculous for gypsy or showground people . There is only 10 residential houses in the lane and if you put 20 gypsy static vans on the plot it will dominate the local community. This is a ridiculous suggestion and should be refused straight away . The lane is 8ft wide and would not be able sustain traffic created by this suggestion. There is no local services and the infrastructure is totally inadequate. The Leeds road entrance into green lane is an accident hot spot and the lane is not wide enough for a dust cart let alone mobile homes / caravans . Someone needs to come and look at the detail in real time instead of looking on a computer screen to make decisions that are just not fit for purpose .
No answer given
No answer given
Site C4S017 The Brishings. Long term harm to the countryside. Alter the character of the village. Safeguarding policies are intended to protect suitable sites. This site is NOT suitable and if this goes ahead the harm will be permanent.
No answer given
No answer given
I strongly disagree to the proposal of the C4S(017) The Brishings location as a proposed site. This will have major impacts on the surrounding area which is already struggling with road usage (there would be no safe access road to the site), impact on utilities, lack of local public transport. The use of this location will impact the historical nature of the village, impact to nature from light pollution, increased flooding risks, wasted aquacultural use of the land, impact to the wildlife that live on the land (foxes, badgers, bats, owls and birds of pray to name a few).
No Strong views.
A site in Langley was permitted after Inspectorate granted it on the grounds that this was for one unwell woman and child only. This pitch was immediately put out for rent and 2 further pitches have popped up. How would the sites be safeguarded?
Existing permitted sites should not only be safeguarded, but measures should be taken to ensure that only persons classified as gypsies and travellers live in them. Sub-letting of pitches to persons not of a traditional nomadic lifestyle should not be permitted.
To ensure that existing sites are safeguarded to meet current and future need.
No answer given
No answer given
Agree with the proposed policy for safeguarding permitted sites. Suggest that Policy TR3 (1) could include, “Or that an alternative suitable site has been authorised in meeting Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need”. Questions use of word ‘modest’ in this policy as it isn’t clearly quantified.
Generally agree except (3): Intensification (more than a few nominal units eg 3) should be avoided to alleviate social stresses like school & GP places and to avoid a Ghetto-fication of the GTS community, especially where there are already existing neighbourhood conflicts between the GTS and non-GTS communities
No answer given
There is no space for expansion in Bearsted. Local service and schools already overhwelmed.
Change of use should be allowed for authorised traveller sites, where this is appropriate and approved as part of the usual planning process. What planning legislation in general and the NPPF in particular encourages is a proactive and positive approach to granting planning permission for alternative use, to make efficient use of land and to meet changing local needs. It would be wrong, therefore, to treat traveller sites in this manner. In point 102 the Council says there are many existing (predominantly small) sites which have conditions limiting occupation to named occupants, and goes on to indicate that these should become unconditionally authorised sites. We do not agree with this approach, as many of these sites will have been granted permission on the basis of individual need when they would not otherwise have been deemed to be suitable. They should therefore be individually reassessed on the basis of TR7 & TR8. At present, they cannot count toward the Borough’s supply as they are not available for all members of the community, and if the site were vacated by the named occupant, the pitch would cease to be part of the Council’s stock of sites. As previously mentioned, if policies TR7 and TR8 are to detail the criteria for accepting sites, additional requirements should add parking for at least 2 cars, circulation space for vehicles, especially important for manoeuvring large mobile homes on and off site, minimum size of pitches (320m2), amenity space for each pitch (TR8(1a)), dependable infrastructure for the sewage disposal and drainage, and consider future flood risk as per the new emerging NPPF. Play space for children should be required within each pitch, or where sites are smaller, safeguarded within the wider site itself. A lack of play space results in children playing in the access driveways which is unsafe. The phrase ‘where appropriate’ is unclear in TR8(1b/c)? TR7(1f) presently accepts moderate landscape harm as acceptable. The assessment of harm should be a planning balance exercise not accepted as policy compliance. This section conflicts with TR8(1h). It should also look to address upgrading the design of existing sites where intensification is to be permitted. Particular attention should be given to the disposal of sewage, as the majority of sites in rural areas will not be connected to main drains and often rely on the use of septic tanks, which are likely to be undersized where expansion is permitted.
Established sites should be maintained and supported, as long as they are being used appropriately, safely and according to the agreements with the council that have previously been made.
Surely this is not sustainable. Also many of the sites around the area are illegal or start that way. This policy seems to give part of the community to break planning rules but then get protection which is not afforded to the settled community. This does not provide a fair and balanced approach and leads to divisions in the community.
Permanent sites are part of the formal environment in the same way as permanent settled residences and should be treated as such; the residents may travel but have a social tie to the area. I support the safeguarding of these sites.