Question 10: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for general site design and layout? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
Access to deliver static caravans will be dangerous in water lane. Absolute madness .
The Brishings mentions '20 pitches' and that could mean a hundred people - adults and children. It would be impossible to get large vehicles, mobile homes or lorries (in the case of show people) as Green Lane is very narrow for all but small cars.
The proposed policies provide a helpful starting point for the consideration of development on each site. Nevertheless, site specific details and constraints need to be taken into account.
No answer given
I disagree with the proposed policy for general site design and layout. While the policy sets out design principles, it lacks enforceable mechanisms and fails to address key planning concerns: Infrastructure & Services No mandatory requirement for assessing impact on local roads, utilities, schools, and healthcare before approving site layouts. Environmental Safeguards Weak Biodiversity Net Gain and habitat surveys mentioned, but enforcement and monitoring unclear. Risk of harm to landscape character and heritage assets remains high. Community Impact Larger sites with communal spaces risk overdominance of rural communities, affecting cohesion and safety. Policy does not address cumulative impact of multiple sites. Visual & Amenity Concerns Landscaping requirements vague; reliance on hedgerows and native planting insufficient to mitigate visual harm. Hard boundary treatments could urbanise rural areas. Sustainability & Drainage Renewable energy and SUDS referenced but not mandatory or detailed enough to ensure compliance.
I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Even with design and layout guidance, the site is unsuitable for development. Its rural location means any residential use, including caravans, hardstanding, fencing, and access works, would significantly change the character of the countryside. Good design cannot fully mitigate the impact of introducing permanent development into this open rural landscape. Additionally, the site’s poor connection to services and infrastructure makes it inherently unsustainable. Allocating development here risks creating a visually intrusive, isolated, and car-dependent site, regardless of layout or design standards. For these reasons, I object to applying the general site layout and design policy to The Brishings, as it remains an unsuitable location for residential development.
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
No answer given
As commented in the previous 8/9 . How many times do I need to repay it . The Brishings site C4S (017) is unacceptable and will not intergrate communities as it will dominate the area and the local community and we catagorically do not want this to be a site for consideration. Remove it !
Proposals must retain existing landscape features in order to ensure development is well screened and to minimise its visual impact this would not be screened as would be situated in the middle of Langley Heath village . The site and erection of 20 pitches for The Brishings C4S (017 ) would bot be in keeping with the listed buildings amd farm cottages in Green Lane
No answer given
Strongly disagree with Water lane- flooding, transport issues, safety concerns ( fatalities ) and impact on local community and their homes.
The Brishings. Design and layout will not fully mitigate the impact this site will have on my community. Previous planning permission has been denied several times for housing and rightly so. So why would a 20 plot development be granted. The site allocation risks creating a visually, environmental, intrusive eyesore regardless of layout and planning.
A new site at brishings cannot be allowed because access to the site is not appropriate for the size and type of vehicles used by travelers nor are travelling communities sympathetic to the existing area around sites with the use on such oversized and noisy vehicles and their use at antisocial times.
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).
Your example of a Tree system layout does not seem appropriate however the decision would be yours.
The roads and pavements are not maintained; drains are not cleared. How are these lovely designs and layouts going to be kept looking pristine? The site at the Brishings is simply not large enough to accommodate these proposals.
Request amendment to final sentence of criterion g. of Policy TR8 to make clear that the use of brick walls and metal fencing should be avoided.
Many existing sites seem to have large areas of hard surfacing which is incongruous in the countryside. I would like to see a minimum percentage of each pitch to be grass or soft landscaping. Grass areas are important for young children to play on. Boundaries should be established with hedging rather than high fencing.
TWBC supports this approach. Consideration should be given to include the need for good management and maintenance of sites for the benefit of the communities living there. DM Policies should include for the fitting of solar panels and other sustainable energy solutions wherever possible. Porous surface materials should be used for all hard standing.
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.
No answer given
No answer given
See comments above on policy TR8. More clarity on pitch size, layout is required along with a suggested maximum pitch number per site. TR8(1h) needs to align with TR7(1f) and LPRHOU8 which requires all criteria to be met for permission to be granted. This includes Ci) and iii) Local landscape character and Existing Landscape Features, and Cii) Cumulative Effect of landscape impact. Also, F) Ecological impact. Policy TR8(1l) may not be achievable with pre-fabricated caravans. There may not be dayrooms proposed where solar could be added. Ground mount solar may not be practical. Removing a minimum 10% is recommended in favour of submitted measures to promote renewables or reduced energy consumption. This could include EV chargers for vehicles and rainwater harvesting. Accepting moderate harm to the landscape is not in line with the NPPF or the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment published guidance. Criteria must reflect the Local Plan Review and the overarching corporate strategy of prioritising the environment and biodiversity objectives. A maximum site size is requested to add extra protection against domination on the nearest settlements and to meet the PPTS aims of community integration. The Good Practice Guide of 15 pitches (in an area) is requested. Site design requirements should clearly show that sites will have the amenities and space to create good places for people to live, tying into the Council’s “Objective 11: Ensuring that all new development is built to a high standard of sustainable design and construction.” TR8(1b) states “Where appropriate” and “should consider” in respect of either individual or communal children’s play space; but PPTS 27(c) looks to prompt opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children. A clear requirement should therefore be set. The policy should refer to the new NPPF consultation policy H012 for Traveller Sites which requires at HO12(1c) that sites should; “Promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as by providing adequate landscaping and play areas for children, and minimising adverse impacts from local environmental factors (such as noise and air quality) on the health and wellbeing of travellers that may locate there; and d. Do not enclose the site such that the site and its occupants appear to be isolated from the rest of the community.”
No answer given
Seems sensible. Sites as with all private and public spaces should be well maintained and considered the environment. Noise and Light pollution from sites should also be a consideration as this can have a negative impact on settled and other travelling communities.