Question 9: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for accommodation on non-allocated sites? Please provide comments to support your answer.
Permission should only be granted on allocated sites
No answer given
The Brishings does not provide access to schools, medical centres, shops or public transport. In addition it is also a flood risk. It has already been rejected for inadequate access and it's proximity to Leeds Road make it a dangerous and unhealthy site particularly for children.
This policy does not accord with the plan-led approach which forms the basis of planning. The Council instead needs to identify sites as it is now doing
I strongly disagree with Policy TR7 for accommodation on non-allocated sites. While the criteria appear comprehensive, the policy lacks enforceable mechanisms and creates significant risks for rural and semi-rural communities. The approach could lead to inappropriate development that overwhelms local infrastructure and services. Roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities are already under strain, and no mandatory impact assessments are required. Environmental safeguards are vague, leaving landscapes, biodiversity, and heritage vulnerable. The policy also fails to address cumulative impacts of multiple sites, which could dominate settled communities and harm community cohesion. Without clear enforcement, transparency, and robust monitoring, this policy is unsound and should be revised to include strict compliance measures before approval.
Despite a couple of read through, still unclear what the actually meaning and potential development of these 'windfall' sites is
I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Allowing Gypsy and Traveller accommodation on non-allocated sites like The Brishings would result in permanent development in open countryside, harming the rural landscape and character of the area. The site is isolated from services, schools, healthcare and public transport, which would create a car-dependent and unsustainable development. Allocating accommodation here under a non-allocated sites policy would entrench development in an unsuitable location and set a precedent for similar proposals in other rural areas. For these reasons, I consider The Brishings unsuitable for accommodation under this policy and object to its inclusion.
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
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.
I think I have said enough in the first eight comments !!!
The Brishings C4S ( 017)will not promote an integrated co-existence between sites and the local community, due to the opposition of many of the village residents . The proposed site is situated in the middle of Langley heath not on the edge as discussed in consideration notes
Water lane is prone to flooding.
The Brisings site meets NONE of your criteria from A-J. My reasoning has been answered in questions 1-8.
A new site at brishings will have an immediate negative impact on the surrounding community.
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).
I agree the policy but the Brishings site does not meet these policy requirements in paras a, b, c, e and g. as the sites has been listed as "Unsustainable".
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.
We request that specific reference is made to the need to avoid harm to the natural beauty of the National Landscapes.
Whilst I tend to agree with the intent of this policy, I do have concerns about development on non allocated sites, which by-passes many of the intended protections with the DPD as a whole. The balance between the settled and the G&T community is not usually well considered in these situations, but is important in supporting the aim of community cohesion.
TWBC is supportive of this approach to ensure that new accommodation on non-allocated sites is of good quality, provides a healthy environment for residents, close to local facilities and respects the natural environment
No answer given
Policy/ Supporting Text TR7/ TR8 We suggest that text is included in the plan – perhaps within or supporting policies TR7/ TR8 – to cover the following: National Highways, acting as the statutory consultee on behalf of the Department for Transport Secretary of State, will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe, reliable and/or efficient operation of the SRN (the tests set out in DfT C1/22 and MHCLG NPPF2024), by virtue of a) The traffic attracted to, generated by or rerouted as a result of proposals and/or b) the construction, operation or maintenance of a site adjacent to or in close proximity to the SRN. While traffic generated by any GTTS sites is unlikely to be material, if an access is on/close to the SRN it may still be. And any sites located close to or on the SRN boundary will be material. For example, we would need to ensure: • changes of ground level or structures (eg bunds/ community buildings etc) don’t affect the geotechnical integrity of the SRN or create a risk of a structure collapsing into the SRN; • changes to or new drainage infrastructure doesn’t connect to SRN related highways drainage per se nor unacceptably affect SRN related riverine drainage/ nearby land via water flow or quality changes; • boundaries (fencing/vegetation etc) prevent people/ pets etc from straying onto the SRN; • any street or other lighting doesn’t produce glint/ glare/ dazzle / distraction for SRN users. • any development or the expectations of occupiers does not fetter the future ability of NH to operate, maintain and/or improve the existing SRN Thus, text ensuring that National Highways are consulted on any relevant applications should be included in the DPD.
Southern Water is the wastewater service provider for the Maidstone district and supplies water to part of the district. As such we are responsible for a range of utilities assets, including strategic sites, that perform an essential function to the district. In addition to assets having ongoing access needs for maintenance to ensure continued operation, the essential function these assets perform will at times need to expand in capacity in order to support future growth. We therefore request additional wording in this policy, as locating permanent sites adjacent or near to existing assets could compromise Southern Water’s ability to continue to serve growth in the district. Requested wording: We request that the following wording is added to policies TR4 and TR7: The utility network should be protected and permission for site proposals that would compromise existing utilities infrastructure, or encroach on future connections for utilities, will be refused. The needs of new and improved utility infrastructure will be supported to meet the identified needs of the community subject to other policies in this plan. This is in line with the intention of paragraphs 60 (objective 4, page 19) and 126 of this draft DPD. Further explanation: We make these requests having noted the number of potential site allocations proposed within the DPD, and the policies proposed to allow for the future granting of planning permission for non-allocated sites. Southern Water may have to provide additional wastewater infrastructure to serve new and existing customers and continue to meet stricter environmental standards. It is likely that there would be limited options to locate infrastructure as it needs to connect to existing networks. Planning policy should help to safeguard the strategic infrastructure necessary to sustainable development and support proposals to deliver additional infrastructure. The NPPF (December, 2024) paragraph 7 states that: The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. Paragraph 9 explains further that sustainable development objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans. The National Planning Practice Guidance also makes clear that ‘Adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development’. Also, it is important to note that existing public sewer infrastructure (that Southern Water is responsible for) can sometimes run beneath sites proposed for designation as local green spaces or as green gaps. It is reasonable to assume there will be examples like this within some of the sites proposed in this DPD. At times this infrastructure will require essential maintenance and/or reinforcement/replacement. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (December 2024) sets out the intention to protect the countryside and prevent settlement coalescence through its Green Belt policies, for which it establishes: • The intention in paragraph 153 of ruling out inappropriate development ‘except in very special circumstances’ that exist if the potential harm of a development proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations. • In paragraph 154 that 'certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate' including 'engineering operations'. • Also in paragraph 108 of the NPPF that Local Green Space policies should be consistent with those for Green Belts. Southern Water considers that should the need arise, special circumstances exist in relation to the provision of essential wastewater infrastructure (e.g a new pumping station) required to serve new and existing customers. This is because there can be limited options available with regard to location, as the infrastructure would need to connect into existing networks. The draft National Planning Practice Guidance recognises this scenario and states that ‘it is important to recognise that water and wastewater infrastructure can have specific locational needs (and often consists of engineering works rather than new buildings). This means exceptionally otherwise protected areas may have to be considered, where this is consistent with their designation.’ It is also worth noting that wastewater treatment works (WTW) with environmental permits to manage controlled wastes fall within the legal definition of waste management sites. An important strategy of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2025) is the safeguarding of such sites. Similarly, the protection of WTW assets and their ability to continue to meet future wastewater treatment and recycling needs is of primary importance to Southern Water.
No answer given
Agree with proposed policy. Suggest change from site ‘size’ to site ‘design’
See comments above. TR7(1b) needs to reflect PPTS 13. TR7(1f) implies moderate landscape harm is always acceptable, when it should be part of a planning balance. TR7(1g) is unclear. What are exceptional circumstances? This is an extremely high bar. TR7(1g) also implies a sequential test is needed, with sites ‘preferred’ in certain locations. How will this be evidenced/assessed? Overall, the wording is ambiguous and impossible for the Council to assess and control. A more detailed and controllable specification is required.
The criteria set out in this section seem more stringent than those applied in identifying proposed sites earlier in the document. C4S(008), for instance, would have poor access from the road, community facilities are already oversubscribed and the site is a flood risk.
It's not just about the size of the individual site but the net increase this would bring to the area. Also it is not just about getting to medical facilities, schools etc, it is about the availability of these resources. This is the same for all developments. Not just those specially for the travelling communities.
Although windfall sites may provide positive opportunities in some cases, this policy does not see to take into account the impact on the settled community, the impact on pre-existing Gypsy or Traveller sites, the impact on local resources. Windfall sites should have a maximum number of pitches in the planning (so no community is suddenly facing an increase of eg 30 plus families with extremely limited grounds for objection) and should be required to be a minimum distance from other sites to ensure there is no 'sprawl' and each site retains its distinct identity. The policy on windfall sites should be enhanced.