Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Mr Ian Forrest search
New searchI disagree with the proposed policy for allocating sites for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. My concerns are based on material planning considerations: Infrastructure Capacity: No clear evidence that local roads, utilities, schools, and healthcare can accommodate additional demand. Risk of congestion and service strain. Environmental Impact: Policy lacks robust requirements for environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures to protect landscape character, biodiversity, and residential amenity. Transparency and Accountability: Criteria for site suitability are vague, creating uncertainty and risk of inappropriate development in sensitive rural and semi-urban areas. Community Safety and Cohesion: Policy does not address impacts on community safety or cohesion, which should be considered alongside infrastructure and service provision. Compliance and Enforcement: Weak safeguarding measures for permitted sites; no clear monitoring or penalties for non-compliance. Recommendation: The policy should include: Mandatory infrastructure and traffic impact assessments. Clear sustainability and accessibility criteria for site selection. Strong environmental protections and compliance monitoring. Transparent enforcement mechanisms.
Objection to Potential Site Allocation – Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I strongly disagree with the proposed allocation of The Lodge (Policy C4S (008)) for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. My objections are based on the following planning-related and community concerns: Infrastructure Capacity: Water Lane and surrounding roads are narrow and already congested. Local infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare, utilities) cannot cope with additional demand from new pitches. Environmental Impact: The site risks harm to local biodiversity and landscape character. While a Phase 1 habitat survey is mentioned, mitigation measures are unclear and insufficient. Community Safety: Increased population density could place additional strain on local policing resources, raising concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour. Overdevelopment: The area is already under pressure from population growth. Further development will exacerbate congestion and reduce quality of life. Property Values: Introducing a large permanent site in this location could negatively impact house prices and devalue existing homes, affecting long-term community stability. Policy Weakness: Criteria for site suitability and enforcement are vague. There is no guarantee that landscaping or habitat mitigation will be properly implemented or maintained. Recommendation: Remove The Lodge from the allocation list or require a full infrastructure and environmental impact assessment, with clear safeguards and compliance monitoring before any approval.
I disagree with the proposed policy for new public site provision under Policy TR5. While the intention to provide affordable pitches for borough residents is noted, the policy lacks robust safeguards and clear criteria for site selection. There is no evidence that infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, and community cohesion have been adequately considered. Without mandatory impact assessments and transparent enforcement mechanisms, this policy risks creating significant strain on local roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities. Furthermore, the absence of detailed sustainability and accessibility requirements could lead to inappropriate site locations, harming rural landscapes and residential amenity.
I strongly disagree with the proposed policy for rural exception sites under Policy TR6. While the intention to meet local accommodation needs is noted, the policy lacks robust safeguards and creates significant risks for rural communities. The criteria outlined are insufficient to prevent inappropriate development in sensitive countryside locations. There is no clear mechanism to ensure infrastructure capacity, enforce sustainability standards, or protect against cumulative impacts on small rural settlements. The requirement for local need surveys and family/employment connections is positive but does not mitigate concerns about strain on roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities. Furthermore, biodiversity net gain and heritage considerations, while mentioned, are vague and unenforceable without detailed monitoring and compliance measures. This policy could lead to overdevelopment, harm to landscape character, and increased pressure on community cohesion and safety.
I strongly disagree with Policy TR7 for accommodation on non-allocated sites. While the criteria appear comprehensive, the policy lacks enforceable mechanisms and creates significant risks for rural and semi-rural communities. The approach could lead to inappropriate development that overwhelms local infrastructure and services. Roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities are already under strain, and no mandatory impact assessments are required. Environmental safeguards are vague, leaving landscapes, biodiversity, and heritage vulnerable. The policy also fails to address cumulative impacts of multiple sites, which could dominate settled communities and harm community cohesion. Without clear enforcement, transparency, and robust monitoring, this policy is unsound and should be revised to include strict compliance measures before approval.
I disagree with the proposed policy for general site design and layout. While the policy sets out design principles, it lacks enforceable mechanisms and fails to address key planning concerns: Infrastructure & Services No mandatory requirement for assessing impact on local roads, utilities, schools, and healthcare before approving site layouts. Environmental Safeguards Weak Biodiversity Net Gain and habitat surveys mentioned, but enforcement and monitoring unclear. Risk of harm to landscape character and heritage assets remains high. Community Impact Larger sites with communal spaces risk overdominance of rural communities, affecting cohesion and safety. Policy does not address cumulative impact of multiple sites. Visual & Amenity Concerns Landscaping requirements vague; reliance on hedgerows and native planting insufficient to mitigate visual harm. Hard boundary treatments could urbanise rural areas. Sustainability & Drainage Renewable energy and SUDS referenced but not mandatory or detailed enough to ensure compliance.
I disagree with Policy TR9 as it lacks enforceable safeguards and fails to address key planning concerns. While the policy outlines design principles for dayrooms and amenity blocks, it does not ensure mandatory compliance with infrastructure capacity, sustainability standards, or cumulative impact checks. The requirement for buildings to be “in keeping with the surrounding area” is vague and subjective, risking inappropriate development that could harm rural character and visual amenity. Furthermore, renewable energy, water efficiency, and ecological enhancements are referenced but not backed by clear enforcement or monitoring mechanisms. Without robust conditions, this policy could lead to overdevelopment and urbanising effects in sensitive rural landscapes.
I disagree with the proposed monitoring and review indicators because they lack robust enforcement mechanisms and fail to address critical risks. While annual monitoring is noted, the indicators focus on counting pitches and encampments rather than assessing infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, or community cohesion. There is no clear trigger for mandatory policy review when cumulative impacts occur, nor any requirement for independent audits. Without stronger compliance checks and transparent reporting, these indicators will not prevent overdevelopment or mitigate harm to rural landscapes and local services.
I am a local resident living close to the proposed site at the Lodge in Water Lane, Bearsted (C4S (008). Please accept my objections to the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Development Plan Document (Regulation 18c). I strongly oppose these plans for The Lodge, Water Lane, C4S (008) based on many factors, including: limited access, road safety, local congestion, access to shops, schools & transport, highway access, impact to the environment, visual impact, potential impact on local property prices, impact to wildlife, hedgerows & drainage, increased noise & pressure on local services and infrastructure. **Summary of objections below** • Spatial strategy (TR1): overconcentration; no evidence of infrastructure capacity; environmental risks. • Policy to meet needs: lacks mandatory transport/social‑infrastructure tests; weak sustainability/accessibility safeguards. • Safeguarding permitted sites: weak enforcement/monitoring. • Allocating sites: vague suitability criteria; inadequate environmental safeguards; community safety risks. • Site‑specific: The Lodge – Policy C4S (008): infrastructure constraints on Water Lane; biodiversity/landscape risks; policing and cohesion concerns; potential impact on property values. • TR5 public sites: no mandatory impact assessments; vague delivery criteria. • TR6 rural exception sites: risk of overdevelopment; unenforceable environmental safeguards. • TR7 non‑allocated sites: weak compliance; cumulative impacts not controlled. • TR8 design & layout: no enforceable sustainability/BNG/SUDS standards; landscaping could urbanise rural areas. • TR9 dayrooms & amenity blocks: no clear size limits; sustainability measures not mandated. • Monitoring & review: indicators omit infrastructure/environmental outcomes and cumulative impacts; need independent audits and explicit review triggers. **Request:** Remove The Lodge (Policy C4S (008)) from the allocation list as I believe this location is unsuitable.
