Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S-017). Even with design and layout guidance, the site is unsuitable for development. Its rural location means any residential use, including caravans, hardstanding, fencing, and access works, would significantly change the character of the countryside. Good design cannot fully mitigate the impact of introducing permanent development into this open rural landscape. Additionally, the site’s poor connection to services and infrastructure makes it inherently unsustainable. Allocating development here risks creating a visually intrusive, isolated, and car-dependent site, regardless of layout or design standards. For these reasons, I object to applying the general site layout and design policy to The Brishings, as it remains an unsuitable location for residential development.

Strongly disagree

I object to the proposed policy applying to The Brishings (Site C4S 017). Even modest buildings such as day rooms or amenity blocks would add to the visual and environmental impact of development in this open countryside location. The rural character of the site means any permanent structures would be intrusive and out of keeping with the surrounding landscape. Combined with the site’s poor access to services and infrastructure, introducing day rooms or amenity blocks would contribute to an unsustainable and isolated development. For these reasons, I object to applying the policy for day rooms and amenity blocks to The Brishings, as the site is unsuitable for residential development of any kind as has been proven by its repeated planning refusal for building in the past.

Strongly disagree

I object to the proposed monitoring and review indicators in relation to The Brishings (Site C4S 017). The site is unsuitable for development, and monitoring indicators cannot change the fact that allocating it would cause permanent harm to the countryside and rural landscape. Indicators related to occupancy, site management or compliance do not address the fundamental unsuitability of the site’s location, poor access to services, or impacts on sustainability. Simply setting out annual indicators and triggers does not ensure that policy outcomes will be delivered in practice. National research has shown that many councils with similar monitoring arrangements have failed to allocate or provide Traveller sites despite having monitoring frameworks in place, and unmet needs have persisted even where annual monitoring exists. If monitoring and review mechanisms have historically failed to prompt corrective action elsewhere, then relying on them here does not make the allocation of an unsuitable site like The Brishings any more acceptable. For these reasons, I object to applying the proposed monitoring and review policy to The Brishings, as the site is inappropriate for residential development and should not be included in the plan.