Question 8: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for rural exception sites? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
No answer given
The Brishings does not have good access to schools, medical centres, shops and public transport. It is important to identify sites that provide those so travellers are not isolated and able to access schools, medical centres, shops and public transport.
No comment.
I strongly disagree with the proposed policy for rural exception sites under Policy TR6. While the intention to meet local accommodation needs is noted, the policy lacks robust safeguards and creates significant risks for rural communities. The criteria outlined are insufficient to prevent inappropriate development in sensitive countryside locations. There is no clear mechanism to ensure infrastructure capacity, enforce sustainability standards, or protect against cumulative impacts on small rural settlements. The requirement for local need surveys and family/employment connections is positive but does not mitigate concerns about strain on roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities. Furthermore, biodiversity net gain and heritage considerations, while mentioned, are vague and unenforceable without detailed monitoring and compliance measures. This policy could lead to overdevelopment, harm to landscape character, and increased pressure on community cohesion and safety.
The Brishings site is in open countryside, and using it as a rural exception site would cause permanent harm to the landscape. It is poorly connected to services and public transport, creating an isolated, car-dependent development. Allowing it as an exception would set a precedent for further inappropriate rural development. For these reasons, The Brishings is unsuitable for a rural exception site and should not be included in the policy.
Dear Alison, I am writing to formally raise my objections to the following sites currently under consideration by the Council as part of the Call for Sites exercise for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I am concerned that the Council has not specified the number of pitches being proposed for this site. Regardless of scale, The Lodge is accessed via a very narrow country lane, which would be wholly unsuitable for development of this nature. In addition, there are strong local concerns that development would have a detrimental impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape. The site also contains several important oak trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, which could be negatively affected by any development. Policy C4S (017) – The Brishings This site is extremely unpopular with local residents, to the extent that a petition has been organised in opposition. It is important that the Council gives due weight to the strength of local opinion when making planning decisions. Having recently purchased a house in [...] had I know about the proposal I would never have purchased the house. [...] The proposed development for the travellers site has purposefully been withheld from anyone purchasing in Lilk meadow which is dishonest, I know none of the residents in the new Lilk meadow development would have bought their house had they know about this proposal. Furthermore, as with The Lodge on Green Lane, access to this site is via a single-track country lane. This road would be entirely incapable of accommodating the level of traffic that a development of approximately 20 pitches would generate. I trust these concerns will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing assessment of sites. I look forward to your response
No answer given
POLICY C4S (017) – THE BRISHINGS I strongly disagree with allowing this site to be used for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling showpeople site for the following reasons: It does not meet the criteria which states that the site must be accessible by foot/cycle/public transport to school/health and shopping facilities, there is no school or shops in Langley Heath and the only GP surgery in Langley Heath is full and not taking on any more patients (the site with 20 plots could have around 80 patients to accommodate (at 4 people per pitch). The criteria states that the site proposal must be appropriate to the size of the nearest settled community. The nearest settled community is the hamlet on Green Lane, where there is a handful of historic houses. The historic character and separate identity of this hamlet would be lost and the gypsy site would be detrimental to this hamlet and Policy C of the Government Policy paper for Traveller Sites states that any site should not dominate the nearest settled community, which if The Brishings is used for a traveller site it would dominate the nearest settled community. The criteria states that the site should be safely accessed to and from the highway by all vehicles using the site, including emergency services and maintenance vehicles. Your policy states that planning permission will only be granted for the Brishings site if the site can be accessed via Green Lane. Green Lane is a small rural lane with a turning onto Heath Road, this turning and the lane is unsuitable in size for large vehicles required for the initial redevelopment of the site, including the placement of the "homes" themselves, on-going maintenance and for the number of vehicles that the site will generate, around approx 40 (2 vehicles per pitch minimum). The other approach roads into Green Lane from the village is also too small for any of these vehicles. In places Green Lane is less than 8 ft wide at times in it's length. Green Lane would not be suitable for widening due to the situation of historic houses and ancient trees lining the road. When there is a local diversion HGVs have tried to use Green Lane and get stuck and due to the village roads being unsuitable for larger vehicles the local village bus has had to be re-routed and the school bus has been stopped altogether due to access problems and incidents. The criteria states that there should not be any issues with flooding, on the Brishings there is a water course, which has flooded into neighbouring houses on Shepherd's Way, which is adjacent to the site, adding development to the plot of land at the Brishings will only add to the flooding issues as by developing the land you will be taking away the natural soakaway element of the land itself and adding concrete bases for 20 plus pitches. The criteria states references rural exception sites , but Government policy for Traveller Sites states that rural exception sites can only be used to address the needs of the local traveller community who are current residents or who have existing family or an employment connection, also this states that rural exception sites cannot be used for mixed use, ie homes and business. Langley Heath does not have an existing community of travellers who need to move. The criteria refers to crime, there is already a problem with rural crime in Langley Heath, some of which is committed by the travelling communities who live in other local villages, despite being reported, nothing is done to address this problem and by using The Brishings as a permanent traveller site this would only make the crime problem worse. The land itself has been classified as grading no2, so important to the biodiversity of the local area, by adding the pitches you will be downgrading the land and affecting the biodiversity of the land. Land in category no 2 should not be used for development and the Brishings site has had many planning applications on it over the years, all of which have been refused and now The Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan 2021 - 2038 states that Langley Heath is not identified in the local plan with reference to new housing, which is supported by the government policy in Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS) and the National Planning Policy Framework, this policy states that planning permission for traveller sites must be determined with the Local Plan. (Section 38 (1)of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.) Government Policy states that when considering traveller sites you must consider sustainability, environmental protection, protect the Green belt, protect the local amenity and the environment and whilst facilitating the traditional life of travellers, whilst also respecting the interests of the settled community, in summary, taking all the above points into account, land at the Brishings fails to meet the policys/criterias used as guidance when considering the permanent Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling showpeoples sites.
The Brishings C4S (017) The development cannot be made safely accessible to and from the public highway by all vehicles using the site; The scale of the proposed site is not in proportion to, and would not dominate, the nearest settled community;
Rural exception sites especially the ref C4S(017) The Brishings Green lane is not in proportion and will be dominated . The scale of the prosed site is not in proportion to the local community of 10 residential houses opposite the proposed site . What are you thinking . Come and look at the site physically and not on a computer screen . This site is not on the edge of a community it is smack bang in the middle and will dominate the area. The Heath will be lost so no Langley Heath village any more !! Wake up councillors/ planners for this area .
Strongly disagree to the site of water lane. This would dominate the area and cause major transport issues. Causing huge safety concerns.
The Brishings can not be safely entered via the public highway because Green Lane isn't suitable for such increased weighted traffic. Leeds Road access to Green Lane is impractical for lorries. This site will dominate the village and is not in keeping with the rural landscape. Previous housing applications have been denied on the site.
A new site at brishing’s will immediately over dominate the surrounding area.
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).
The policy is acceptable but the Brishings site does not meet this policy requirement so should not be considered
20 pitches within the small rural village of Langley would not be beneficial to either the current residents or for the gypsy, traveller and showpeople community as there are not the local amenities needed. This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
As previously stated, and acknowledged in this section, great care must be taken to avoid over-intensification of sites to avoid both tensions within the G&T community and potential imbalance between the G&T community and the settled community, leading to a potential domination of the nearby community, which makes community cohesion sought in this policy difficult to achieve.
TWBC previously commented at Regulation 18b that we did not see a necessity for a rural exceptions site policy to meet need as such development would form part of windfall development. This comment still stands and believe that a rural exceptions policy is not required as part of a future DPD, although we appreciate that this is part of Planning Policy Guidance
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The acceptability criteria for rural exception sites should be the same as non-RES sites. Policy TR6 should therefore include the requirements set out in TR7 and TR8 as amended above. It is unclear why 20% BNG is required as a minimum here but not for other policies in the DPD. Consistency should be applied.
Greater consideration should be given to the size of sites and local amenities, especially schools and shops.
Again as with the previous question, this would appear to be a sensible policy however I feel linking this to family by definition there is a suggestion of larger sites. Also in terms of the scale of the site in proportion to settled community the policy should consider the whole. Already in some areas the travelling community outnumbers the settled.
By linking site development to family links, you are encouraging larger sites in areas which already have large sites, regardless of sustainability or impact on the current Gypsy and Traveller community or settled community. This also creates separate communities who do not interact because there is no social need to do so if you are co-located, by choice, with family members. A desire to be close to family extends beyond the Gypsy and Traveller communities, but cannot be a planning right. Furthermore, points b) and c) are consistently disregarded in current planning decision (for example Pye Corner is dominated by sites, and this area has no footpaths or public transport to link them to shops or medical facilities). More robust policy needs to be in place and enforced to ensure that areas with a greater density of sites currently are not expected to absorb more, due to the limited facilities available.
This fails at the first step in the Chartway Street/Pitt Road area as there are a disproportionate number of Gypsy/Traveller sites versus the 'settled' community. It also links in with the council's wider failure to address new housing developments where infrastructure is often lacking. Putting undue pressure on existing services.
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.
No answer given