Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Kate Say search
New searchWhile I don't disagree that this cohort of society need suitable housing, it needs to be exactly that. Kent is overrun, as your consultation says, with more 'Gypsy/Travellers' than elsewhere in the country. There needs to be a fair balance with the rest of society. You frequently allow these sites to overgrow their intended capacity and over-allow in the same areas, creating 'tribal' tendencies ie aggressive and intimidating behaviour which is seen in many of the areas in your consultation. You - MBC and KCC - run on a policy of 'allocate and hide'. You allow this community to access land others cannot and vastly overgrow their sites, and you also permit them planning which is unattainable for others. You then, utterly, fail to ensure planning and building regulations are adhered to for example, no suitable foul drainage but just using hosepipes which either run into their land and adjacent to neighbouring property (I have an example, please contact me if you want more details), or are run over main roads to neighbouring land (which they don't own). This is environmental pollution which makes a mockery of things you say in this consultation. Have you ever actually properly visited and inspected a 'Traveller' site, especially post 'planning'? There is a disproportionate level of retrospective planning allowed. Your planning emails are full of them. The use of 'day rooms' is laughable. While I don't have an issue with them per se, they are not generally 'day rooms' but permanent residency slipped in under the radar. However, where day rooms are permitted, the sites tend to be better maintained so they appear to be a positive but should be subject to the same rules everyone else is expected to comply with. The planning rules are supposed to prevent construction on flood plains. There are, however, examples where you have ignored this and allowed sites to be constructed enabling the incumbents to provide flood protection to themselves but causing flooding to roads and other land, causing detrimental impact to infrastructure. And before you say, these comments are biased, they are based on daily, lived-in, real experience of what living in close proximity with 'Gypsy/Travellers' is actually like.
You must, as the authority, as mentioned in my previous answer, have balance and thought for the needs of the wider community. Their needs matter too. New pitches must not be allowed to become overbearing within the local community. You run the risk of creating 'ghetto-like' areas where non Gypsy/Travellers fear to go. There have been examples of this type of behaviour in Headcorn and you see it with the trotting carts and the behaviours of a significant number of the 'riders' who display scant regard for the safety of other road users and are frequently abusive. That is especially evidenced in the behaviour of Gyspy/Traveller children/young people. The 'windfall' allocation appears to be disproportionately favourable to Gypsy/Traveller applications.
No answer given
I can't comment on the majority of these proposed sites, however, I can comment on: The Meadows (Pitt Road), Leeds and Langley, Headcorn and Sutton Valence. These areas are already at saturation point with the Gypsy/Traveller sites, permitted and non-permitted. They are causing behavioural and cultural problems for the wider community and creating 'ghetto-like' areas which are intimidating and at odds with the county.
I'm unable to comment widely but from local knowledge can say The Meadows, Pitt Road/Chartway Street is an unsuitable site. Pitt Road is a single track road with few passing places and Chartway Street is heavily used by both residential and commercial heavy goods vehicles making already above capacity for this significant increase in traffic. Pitt Road already floods from the run off from the surrounding farmland. This would be significantly increased if a site were to be constructed causing less ability for natural water dispersal. And it's not dissimilar for Chartway Street.
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?
This fails at the first step in the Chartway Street/Pitt Road area as there are a disproportionate number of Gypsy/Traveller sites versus the 'settled' community. It also links in with the council's wider failure to address new housing developments where infrastructure is often lacking. Putting undue pressure on existing services.
Think the Gypsy/Traveller community need to deal with all the things the 'settled' community have to. No favouritism for anyone. Some of the above reads as utter nonsense.
The same rules that apply to the 'settled' community should apply here.
