Question 11: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for dayrooms and amenity blocks? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
I disagree with the proposed site of the Brishings for all the reasons previously stated. Therefore the issue of dayrooms and amenity blocks is not relevant.
Whilst it is acknowledged that there is increasing use of these facilities, account needs to be taken on the specific requirements of the family or families that will occupy the sites.
No answer given
I disagree with Policy TR9 as it lacks enforceable safeguards and fails to address key planning concerns. While the policy outlines design principles for dayrooms and amenity blocks, it does not ensure mandatory compliance with infrastructure capacity, sustainability standards, or cumulative impact checks. The requirement for buildings to be “in keeping with the surrounding area” is vague and subjective, risking inappropriate development that could harm rural character and visual amenity. Furthermore, renewable energy, water efficiency, and ecological enhancements are referenced but not backed by clear enforcement or monitoring mechanisms. Without robust conditions, this policy could lead to overdevelopment and urbanising effects in sensitive rural landscapes.
I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S 017). Even modest buildings such as day rooms or amenity blocks would add to the visual and environmental impact of development in this open countryside location. The rural character of the site means any permanent structures would be intrusive and out of keeping with the surrounding landscape. Combined with the site’s poor access to services and infrastructure, introducing day rooms or amenity blocks would contribute to an unsustainable and isolated development. For these reasons, I object to applying the policy for day rooms and amenity blocks to The Brishings, as the site is unsuitable for residential development of any kind as has been proven by its repeated planning refusal for building in the past.
No answer given
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
Strongly disagree
The Brishings site has had previous planning permission for accommodation denied. There is nothing like it in our village so will not be in keeping. No design feature can out weigh the impact this site will have in the village and the site would be isolated and unsustainable.
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 answer given
They look lovely. Where are the services going to come from? Please look at water services, road access to our already stretched infrastructure. Do the static caravans not come with these amenities`?
We request that reference is added in the supporting text to the Kent Downs National Landscape Landscape Design Handbook and Guidance on the Selection and Use of Colour in the case of developments that affect the National Landscape or its setting.
Whilst I accept the desire for amenity blocks, they should not be constructed of brick or solid material. As many pitches are located within the countryside, permanent structures are not in keeping with the countryside setting. Timber buildings are much more in keeping with the setting, and are of a more temporary nature. Many ‘garden rooms ‘ available nowadays are very high quality, well insulated and perfectly suitable for daytime use. The construction of brick day rooms is out of balance with what is usually permitted for the settled community, and equal treatment is essential to avoid unequal treatment for the G&T residents versus the settled community. They should not be rented out, or used for overnight accommodation at any time. They should be limited in size. Solar panels should be required on the roof of all amenity blocks and where possible, on the roof of all static homes too.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Dayrooms should be proportionate to their intended use and should not overburden the site as to give the impression of it being a dwelling-house surrounded by mobile homes and caravans.
Dayrooms are not always desired by families, so the policy should clarify “where dayrooms or amenity blocks are proposed, they should…”
Seems sensible but no comment to make.
I cannot comment directly on the usage of blocks and how they are located on sites; however ensuring everyone has the facilities they need is essential, and I support them as a requirement on sites for this reason.
The planners need to be aware of abuse of 'day room' applications whereby oversized buildings are requested to allegedly facilitate multiple pitches but are then converted to permanent dwellings, as referenced in my earlier comments.
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
Strongly disagree. G&T state their culture dictates they need to live in a caravan. Caravans are self-sufficient in that they have kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms and bedrooms. Therefore, why are additional dayrooms and amenity blocks needed? These brick, unsightly, poor designed, permanent buildings (day rooms, amenity blocks) are huge, do not meet Kent Design Standards for the open countryside as dictated for the settled community. The dayrooms are as big as bungalows and are unnecessary. Why are they so large if the G&T are living in caravans? If dayrooms and amenity blocks are allowed, they need to be appropriately sized, not as large as the average one- or two-bedroom bungalow for the settled community. They need to meet Design Standards for the open countryside, meet full ecological standards, they need to be green energy efficient. They need to have lawful foul wastewater disposal with sufficient space and context to do meet legislation. Why are MBC proposing different build and design standards to those for the settled community?