Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Mr Ryan Booth search
New searchThe site C4S-017 "The Brishings" does not meet the criteria as set out in the councils Spatial Strategy Policy for the following reasons: - Site Suitability and Accessibility: The spatial strategy does not clearly explain how the location will provide reasonable access to key services, schools, health car, employment and public transport compared with alternative sites nearer established settlements. Allocations should prioritise locations where occupants can realistically access everyday facilities without undue reliance on private vehicles, in line with the spatial strategy's sustainability aims. The evidence provided so far does not demonstrate this. - Landscape and Character Impact: The draft plan discusses meeting needs while protecting the boroughs environment and countryside character, but there is insufficient site-specific assessment of landscape sensitivity, visual impact, or cumulative harm in this rural setting. Allocating a site like The Brishings risks disproportionate change to local rural character. - Lack of clear justification compared to alternatives: The spatial strategy does not explain why this site should be preferred over other candidate sites, or how reasonable alternatives were considered against objective criteria such as sustainability, accessibility and environmental protection. There are significant transport issues in the area surrounding "The Brishings" No suitable access is available to the site that would allow for large vehicles to maneuver without causing traffic issues. The site is served by Leeds Road on one side, and Green Lane on the other. Green Lane does not allow access due to the limited width of the road, using this lane to access the site from either end would not give you the required space to safely maneuver large vehicles without causing significant safety concerns. Leeds Road is a fast moving road, there have been a large number of serious collisions at various points along this road, including near to "The Brishings" I request that the council remove The Brishings from the list of potential allocations as use of this site does not meet the goal of the strategy with regards sustainability, accessibility, landscape impact or infrastructure capacity. The draft spatial strategy does not adequately address the findings of the Councils own Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study, which identifies rural areas like those near The Brishings as highly sensitive to change and in need of conservation and reinforcement. Allocating this land undermines the strategy's objective to protect countryside character.
I object to the proposed policy for meeting accommodation needs where it relies on Site C4S-017 – The Brishings. While I recognise the Council want to provide accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, this must be done in appropriate locations. In my view, The Brishings is not a suitable place to meet this need and should not form part of the policy. Firstly, the site is in open countryside and its use for permanent residential pitches would significantly change the character of the area. The introduction of caravans, hardstanding, lighting, fencing and day-to-day residential activity would be visually intrusive and out of keeping with the rural surroundings. This type of development would cause lasting harm to the countryside and does not sit comfortably with the Council’s aim to protect rural character. Secondly, The Brishings is not a sustainable location. It is poorly connected to local services, schools, healthcare and employment, and there is limited access to public transport. As a result, future residents would be heavily dependent on private vehicles for everyday needs. This conflicts with the plan’s stated objective of promoting sustainable development and reducing the need to travel. Thirdly, using The Brishings to meet accommodation needs appears to prioritise meeting targets rather than selecting the most appropriate sites. There is no clear justification for why this rural location is preferable to sites closer to existing settlements where services and infrastructure already exist. For these reasons, I object to the proposed policy insofar as it includes The Brishings as a means of meeting accommodation needs. The site is unsuited to this purpose and its inclusion undermines the overall credibility and sustainability of the plan.
I object to the proposed policy for safeguarding permitted sites where it applies to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Safeguarding policies are intended to protect sites that are clearly suitable, sustainable and appropriately located for their intended use. In the case of The Brishings, safeguarding the site for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation would entrench a form of development that is unsuitable for its rural countryside setting and would make the harm permanent. Firstly, safeguarding The Brishings would lock in long-term harm to the countryside. The site lies in an open rural area where permanent residential use would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of the landscape. By safeguarding the site, the policy would remove future opportunities to reassess whether this location remains appropriate, even if its impacts on landscape character and local amenity become increasingly evident over time. Secondly, safeguarding an unsustainable location runs counter to the plan’s wider objectives. The Brishings is poorly located in relation to services, facilities and public transport. Protecting the site for continued residential use would reinforce car-dependent development in a rural location, which conflicts with the Council’s sustainability and spatial strategy principles. Thirdly, safeguarding The Brishings reduces flexibility in future plan-making. By protecting a site that is not well integrated with nearby settlements, the policy risks limiting the Council’s ability to redirect accommodation provision to more suitable and accessible locations in the future. This approach prioritises permanence over sound planning judgement. For these reasons, I object to the proposed safeguarding policy insofar as it applies to The Brishings. Safeguarding this site would entrench inappropriate development in the countryside and undermine the credibility and sustainability of the overall plan.
I object to the proposed policy for allocating sites where it includes The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Allocating a site through this policy confirms it as an appropriate and acceptable location for development. In the case of The Brishings, the site does not meet this test and should not be allocated for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. Firstly, The Brishings is an unsuitable countryside location. The site is located in a rural area where allocating land for permanent residential use would result in a clear and lasting change to the character of the countryside. The development associated with an allocated site – including caravans, hardstanding, access works, lighting, fencing and general domestic activity – would be visually intrusive and out of keeping with the surrounding landscape. Secondly, the site does not represent a sustainable allocation. The Brishings is poorly connected to services, facilities and public transport. Allocating this site would lead to high reliance on private vehicles for everyday activities, which conflicts with the plan’s stated aim to promote sustainable patterns of development. Thirdly, allocating The Brishings appears to be driven by the need to meet accommodation numbers rather than by sound site selection. There is no clear explanation of why this rural site is preferable to alternative locations closer to existing settlements where infrastructure, services and public transport are already available. Finally, allocation would make the impacts permanent. Once allocated, the principle of development is established and future decision-making becomes constrained. This would effectively lock in development in a location that is poorly suited to long-term residential use. For these reasons, I object to the proposed site allocation policy insofar as it includes The Brishings. Allocating this site would undermine the plan’s objectives for protecting the countryside and promoting sustainable development.
My objection is based on concerns about flood risk, ecological value, and harm to the natural environment that the proposed allocation does not adequately address. 1. Flooding and Drainage Concerns Although some preliminary information suggests that parts of the wider area lie mainly in Flood Zone 1 (low risk), there is evidence of surface water and drainage issues in this locality, based on past assessments of nearby land. This indicates there may be medium risk of surface water flooding and drainage challenges even where the site itself is not in a high-risk flood zone. Land in similar contexts has recorded previous incidents of surface water flooding, which raises questions about how a sizeable residential use would affect flood resilience and safety without detailed, site-specific information. 2. Potential Impacts on Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity The draft development plan requires ecological assessment and biodiversity net gain measures, but allocating The Brishings without clear evidence of current ecological value risks harm to habitats. Nearby site assessment forms indicate The Brishings lies within 2 km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) and close to other sensitive green spaces. Habitat features such as grassland and woodland edge areas can be indicators of protected and priority species (e.g., breeding birds, reptiles, bats) and would need thorough survey work before confirming suitability. Maidstone Borough Council Allocating the site as a residential location without knowing how these habitats and species would be protected or enhanced risks irreversible damage to local biodiversity. Maidstone’s own biodiversity strategy highlights that many habitats and species in the borough are in decline, and conserving these is a priority for sustainable planning. 3. Wider Environmental and Landscape Issues Allocating The Brishings would embed permanent development in an area that forms part of the borough’s rural landscape setting. Even if not formally designated, countryside sites support natural drainage, wildlife movement, and landscape character, all of which can be harmed by unmanaged allocation and subsequent development. Combined with the above points, the policy as currently drafted does not demonstrate that The Brishings is suitable for permanent allocation without negative effects on flood resilience, nature conservation, and the rural environment. For these reasons, I object to the inclusion of The Brishings (Site C4S-017) in the potential site allocation policies. Allocating the site would risk increased flood pressures, harm to local flora and fauna, and loss of countryside character — outcomes that are inconsistent with responsible planning and environmental protection.
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
The Brishings site is in open countryside, and using it as a rural exception site would cause permanent harm to the landscape. It is poorly connected to services and public transport, creating an isolated, car-dependent development. Allowing it as an exception would set a precedent for further inappropriate rural development. For these reasons, The Brishings is unsuitable for a rural exception site and should not be included in the policy.
I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Allowing Gypsy and Traveller accommodation on non-allocated sites like The Brishings would result in permanent development in open countryside, harming the rural landscape and character of the area. The site is isolated from services, schools, healthcare and public transport, which would create a car-dependent and unsustainable development. Allocating accommodation here under a non-allocated sites policy would entrench development in an unsuitable location and set a precedent for similar proposals in other rural areas. For these reasons, I consider The Brishings unsuitable for accommodation under this policy and object to its inclusion.
