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
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a traveller site at Green Lane, Langley. This is a highly residential area, and placing a traveller site here would have a significant impact on the community as a whole. Firstly, Green Lane is accessed via a narrow, one-lane track, which is frequently subject to flooding. This presents clear difficulties in ensuring safe and reliable access to the site, especially during adverse weather. Moreover, the site is overlooked by a large number of homes, which raises serious privacy concerns for both the local residents and any future site occupants. It is also important to note that this site has previously been refused planning permission for residential development due to the concerns about the viability of this land being suitable for housing. There is no reason why these valid concerns should now be disregarded to permit a traveller site, which would still face the same fundamental issues. Furthermore, several alternative sites are available that are far better suited to this purpose. These sites are located in less densely populated areas, minimising the impact on local residents. Additionally, they offer improved access points and better infrastructure, making them more practical and appropriate options. In light of these considerations, I urge the council to reject the proposal at Green Lane and focus on these alternative sites, which would be far less disruptive to the community and better meet the needs of a traveller site.
TR3: Safeguarding Permitted Sites seeks to safeguard existing sites. Whilst the purpose of this policy is to ensure no loss of existing sites, it should include flexibility to allow for the re-location of sites where this would not result in a net loss of pitches.
No answer given
Strongly disagree. The complete refusal to allow alternative use of sites with permission for G&T accommodation is inflexible. I strongly oppose Part 3 of Policy TR3, the intensification, expansion, and reorganisation of sites. Carte blanche approach to intensification is highly inappropriate. This will encourage yet more unauthorised development and result in even more overcrowded sites with poor facilities and amenities. Part 3 needs to be dropped.
Q4 – Policy TR3 (Safeguarding Permitted Sites) Proposed amendment • Remove paragraph 3; if retained, define “modest” relative to original site size. • Add requirement for planning conditions ensuring sites remain in authorised use. Reason / policy justification • PPTS para 14–15 supports occupancy and personal conditions; NPPF para 56 requires enforceable, precise conditions. • Avoids uncontrolled expansion and misuse. Additional Comment • Occupants should be proven Gypsies/Travellers with local connection. • Enforcement is needed to prevent weekly rental of mobile homes to non-
Headcorn Parish Council is broadly comfortable with Parts 1 and 2 of Policy TR3: Safeguarding permitted sites, although it is concerned that that a blanket refusal to allow the alternative use of sites with permission for gypsy and traveller accommodation is too inflexible. However, Headcorn Parish Council strongly opposes Part 3 of Policy TR3 covering the intensification, expansion and reorganisation of gypsy and traveller sites. It considers that the proposed carte blanche approach to intensification, expansion and reorganisation of sites is neither justified nor consistent with sustainable development. In particular, it considers that it is likely to encourage unauthorised development, with all the detriments that brings, and to result in overcrowded sites with poor amenities. Headcorn Parish Council further notes that intensification and reorganisation of sites is not required to achieve the purpose of Policy TR3, namely the Safeguarding of permitted sites, by preventing their conversion to alternative uses. Therefore, in order to ensure that Policy TR3 will meet the definition of sound, Headcorn Parish Council considers that Part 3 of the policy should be dropped.
UPC disagrees that the current permitted sites should be automatically safeguarded. Those sites restricted to a single family should revert back to countryside if the family no longer occupies the site and if this is already an agreed action in these circumstances. Permanent sites with a requirement for G & T occupation could be allotted to others if they qualify as G & T and can prove that there is a connection with Maidstone, but we would recommend that the sites are then classed as temporary if they are in LLVs or in unsustainable areas.