Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Maidstone Borough Council search
New searchWhilst it is noted within this policy that the preferred location for pitches is in the southern rural part of the borough, great care must be taken not to over-intensify the additional number of pitches allocated, as this could potentially cause tensions within the G&T communities, and create too much competition within the traditional areas of employment. Whilst I accept that the assessment of the need for future pitches has been established in conjunction with the existing G&T community, it is acknowledged elsewhere in this document that Maidstone Borough has one of the highest concentrations of gypsies and travellers when compared to the overall number of residents, and the percentage per 1000 head of population is significantly higher than other parts of the UK. This situation could well lead to tensions and competition for employment previously mentioned which would be detrimental to the G&T community going forwards.
Whilst I am in general agreement with this policy, and acknowledge that family groups wish to stay together, I raise again my concerns of over-intensification of pitches in the southern rural part of the borough which could create tensions within the G&T community and reduce availability of work within traditional areas. Additionally, over-intensification of pitches in the south of the borough could create tensions with the settled community, and make community cohesion more difficult to achieve. The issue of the high concentrations of G&T communities in Maidstone Borough must be highlighted with Government for this reason, and over-intensification should be carefully considered when allocating pitches
Existing permitted sites should not only be safeguarded, but measures should be taken to ensure that only persons classified as gypsies and travellers live in them. Sub-letting of pitches to persons not of a traditional nomadic lifestyle should not be permitted.
My lack of knowledge of the local characteristics of the majority of these potential sites means I will only comment on the one site I have knowledge of, which I will do in the next section.
My comments relate only to proposed site allocation C4S(008) The Lodge. I know this location well and access is a big issue. The site has constraints regarding the existing access which currently runs through, and very close to the neighbouring property. If the access was moved to the north, sight lines would be very poor due to existing native hedgerows and protected mature oak trees, which prevent sufficient visibility to the north. There is insufficient width available for the manoeuvring of large vehicles, and therefore the access would not comply with the requirements detailed elsewhere in this document.The site is located within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape and therefore if the hedgerows or trees were removed it would cause harm to the character of the area. Water Lane is very narrow, with high banks on both sides at the southern end and a narrow railway bridge located on a bend in the road, which would be difficult for a static mobile home on a low loader vehicle to negotiate. Water Lane is frequently flooded at its southern end, is traversed by water flowing from adjacent fields and does not provide a safe route for vehicles or pedestrians. Children living on this site would not be able to safely walk to school, as the road has no footpath, no lighting, is frequently ice covered in winter months and has a 60 mph speed limit. There are few if any passing places for vehicles and this would create difficulty for access by both static and towed touring caravans, especially as the road is frequently used by horse boxes accessing Cobham Manor riding centre further up the road. I fully support the comments on the access made by the Bearsted and Thurnham Society. Furthermore, the area has numerous streams and underground aquifers, and therefore drainage and sewage from this site would need to be very carefully planned. I do not consider this site is suitable for inclusion for any pitches and ask that it be removed.
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.
As previously stated, and acknowledged in this section, great care must be taken to avoid over-intensification of sites to avoid both tensions within the G&T community and potential imbalance between the G&T community and the settled community, leading to a potential domination of the nearby community, which makes community cohesion sought in this policy difficult to achieve.
Whilst I tend to agree with the intent of this policy, I do have concerns about development on non allocated sites, which by-passes many of the intended protections with the DPD as a whole. The balance between the settled and the G&T community is not usually well considered in these situations, but is important in supporting the aim of community cohesion.
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.
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.
