Question 7: To what extent do you agree with the proposed policy for new public site provision? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
The lodge water lane is not a suitable location
Sites should not be near local villages so the local inhabitants will be 'swamped' by the influx of travelling families.
No comment.
I disagree with the proposed policy for new public site provision under Policy TR5. While the intention to provide affordable pitches for borough residents is noted, the policy lacks robust safeguards and clear criteria for site selection. There is no evidence that infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, and community cohesion have been adequately considered. Without mandatory impact assessments and transparent enforcement mechanisms, this policy risks creating significant strain on local roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities. Furthermore, the absence of detailed sustainability and accessibility requirements could lead to inappropriate site locations, harming rural landscapes and residential amenity.
There are too many grey areas. Total lack of trust on the motives of land owners selling off land for short term profit, with little or no regard for the 'intrinsic charecteristics' of small villages such as Bearsted
But must be in an appropriate location.
I object to the proposed policy for public site provision where it applies to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Publicly provided sites are intended to be well located, sustainable, and capable of being managed without causing harm to the surrounding area. In my view, The Brishings does not meet these requirements and is not an appropriate location for a publicly provided Gypsy and Traveller site. Firstly, The Brishings is not a suitable location for a public site due to its rural setting. A public site would represent a permanent and intensive form of residential use, including multiple pitches, associated facilities, lighting, access arrangements and ongoing management activity. This would be highly intrusive in the open countryside and would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the area. Secondly, the site is poorly located in relation to services and infrastructure. A public site at The Brishings would be isolated from key services such as schools, healthcare, shops and employment opportunities. Limited public transport availability would mean residents are heavily reliant on private vehicles, which conflicts with the plan’s objectives for sustainable and accessible development. Thirdly, public site provision at The Brishings risks creating a poorly integrated and isolated development. Public sites should be located where they can integrate with existing communities and benefit from nearby facilities. The Brishings’ location does not support this and instead risks reinforcing isolation and long-term management challenges. For these reasons, I object to the proposed policy for public site provision insofar as it includes The Brishings. The site is unsuited to public provision and its inclusion undermines the plan’s aims of sustainability, good site management and appropriate location selection
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
I do agree that there is a need for additional plots or sites however The Brishings is not suitable for consideration.
As I have previously mentioned . How may time ms and questions need to be answered to get the council plan is inept !!!!!
Water Lane Caravan Site- strongly disagree to this policy as a local resident.
C4S-017 The Brishings. Publicly provided sites are intended to be well located,sustainable and managed without causing harm to the surrounding area. This site meets none of these needs as my previous answers to questions 1-6 will back up.
Any new site will devalue existing property values and will increase crime in the area. Fact.
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
£4 milliion? From where will this money be found?
It is essential that the borough provides affordable pitches and ensures availability at all times to ensure that any occupation of non-allocated sites can be resisted.
Maidstone Borough and indeed has a higher proprtion of traveller population than many parts of the country, the numbers should be frozen and sites developed in other parts of the country to spread the population to other areas.
TWBC supports the proposed policy for new public site provision and notes that MBC is committed to the provision of a new public site. However, delivery of a new site is not part of the allocations in this DPD nor is there consideration of the expansion of the existing public sites. It is therefore not clear how MBC proposes to provide for new public sites, for which there is a need. At paragraph 118 the GTTA identifies a need for 10 additional affordable pitches in the first five years, and a further 11 pitches beyond the first five years. To an extent there is also likely to be a hidden affordable pitch need on the two publicly owned sites at Stilebridge and Water Lane. To assist in meeting this need has there been consideration of the expansion of the existing public sites within the parameters of TR6, TR7 and other Development Plan policies? TWBC considers that the potential need for 21 affordable plots needs to be met as part of this DPD in the first 5 years rather than wait for a future review given that this need is only likely to increase.
No answer given
Do your proposals adequately cover the occasion where an existing G/T settlement expands with occupied dwellings without planning permission, thus leading to an enforcement notice and a planning application? At the time of the application, are there adequate powers to ascertain that residents are bona fide Gypsies or Travellers? It is presumed if they are not, any action is outside the scope of this document?
Agree (providing all criteria is met)
Public sites are welcomed. Policy TR5 should clarify if these are GRT pitches or Travelling Showpeople Plots. It appears a policy for both but the design requirements and needs are different for the different groups. This should be clarified with reference to PPTS Annex 1. TR7 and TR8 should be cross referenced for clarity
I do not see why a new public site should be considered separately from this policy. I appreciate the funding is different, but interests and concerns from residents in the borough will likely be the same.
I think generally the public sites mentioned are well maintained and settled and therefore this is a reasonable policy as they tend to provide good social cohesion. Size should be limited and the location should take into account the existing community.
A permanent, Council owned site is a good idea because these sites seem to improve social cohesion between the Gypsy and Traveller and settled communities. A third location outside the two areas would seem sensible. However, the size of the site (ie not exceeding 20 pitches) should not be simply a consideration of the Gypsy or Traveller community, but should take into consideration the views - and amenity impact - on the settled community in the area too. To only consider one viewpoint impacts on community relationships.
As before, you must, must take in to account the impact on the wider community. Twenty pitch allowance is massive! It creates as previously mentioned, 'tribal' behaviour and goes against everything you claim to be aiming for in this consultation. Sites should, always, be kept to a decent and manageable size. In addition, the ridiculous number of bins that these sites seem to have and be allowed to have, by you. When 'normal' residents' bins aren't emptied, the Gypsy/Traveller ones always are. I've been told by several binman that this is an instruction from yourselves. How is that fair and how does that integrate this cohort with the rest of society? And what about Council Tax payments with sites making unrepresentative payments. A quick search of the Council Tax list identifies a significant imbalance in the number of dwellings versus tax collected. Again how is this fair and how does it show this cohort contributing to society - as a means to build an inclusive one?