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
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
Agree. I support the establishment of appropriately located public sites as this may be a way of ensuring sites are run in an appropriate, law-abiding way and to reduce breaches of planning, foul wastewater disposal, ecological policy. It should also be a way to manage crime and disorder that is associated with many G&T sites, especially those that are substantial in size. These sites need to be established where there is easy on foot access to amenities and ideally where it allows socialisation with the settled communities with a view to easing tensions. There needs to be maximum number of pitches of no more than an absolute maximum of 20. These sites must be located along the main road and not deep into open countryside. They must not be located in LLVs, areas of national landscapes or where there are ecological sensitives. These are the landscapes that MBC need to protect and should be our legacy for the future of everyone. Site monitoring and enforcement is essential if these types of sites are to be established and these should be baked-into any proposals.
Q7 – Policy TR6 (Rural Exception Sites) Proposed amendment / position • Sites should comply with sustainability criteria and be professionally managed. • Pitch sizes should be proportionate to settled community standards. • Enforcement of planning permissions must be proactive, particularly regarding retrospective developments. Reason / policy justification • PPTS para 10 emphasizes sustainable, integrated provision of Traveller sites. • NPPF paras 8, 60, 73, and 174 require development to be safe, accessible, and not harmful to the environment or neighbouring communities. • Policy should ensure sites are healthy, safe, and well-integrated, avoiding over-dominance, excessive size, or segregation. Additional Comment • Promote bricks & mortar options for younger generations. • Ensure lighting provides safety without harming landscape. • Pitch size: 320 m² is excessive; consider smaller, manageable layouts. • Facilities: equine provisions must not create disproportionate advantages or be stepping-stones for additional development. • Amenity and green space should be proportionate to what settled communities receive.
Headcorn Parish Council supports the ambition to increase the supply of public sites within the Borough, as it considers that doing so would help ensure enforcement of planning policies could be effective. An increased supply of public sites would allow enforcement officers to point to the availability of affordable pitches to rent as an alternative location when seeking to eliminate unauthorised developments. Therefore, Headcorn Parish Council broadly supports Policy TR5: New public site provision, and considers that an expansion of the supply of public sites is needed for the dDPD to be judged as positively prepared. Headcorn Parish Council notes that the existing public sites within the Borough have low pitch turnover, waiting lists and relatively few problems compared to the larger privately run sites within Headcorn Parish. Headcorn Parish Council therefore has a strong preference that where sites of more than two pitches are allocated within the Parish, that these should be Council run. Headcorn Parish Council notes the discussion of a maximum site capacity of no more than 20 pitches set out in paragraph 120 of the dDPD. Headcorn Parish Council considers that this should be set as the maximum capacity for all development in the countryside (ie outside of existing settlement boundaries), not just for public site provision. This maximum should also limit any potential intensification or expansion of sites. In general, Headcorn Parish Council considers that, with the potential exception of sites that are located on (or abutting) a main road, major developments (of 10 or more homes) should be avoided in the countryside.
We disagree because Policy TR4 is unnecessary. Each allocated site should be assessed according to its own merits and constraints, the effect on the local settled community, and on MBC's G&T and countryside policies