Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

C4S (017) OBJECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL FOR A GYPSY /TRAVELLER SITE AT THE BRISHINGS, GREEN LANE, LANGLEY HEATH, MAIDSTONE C4S(017) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE COUNCIL’S SPATIAL STRATEGY FOCUSES MAJOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MAIN URBAN AREA, DESIGNATED RURAL SERVICE CENTRES AND LARGER VILLAGES. LANGLEY HEATH IS IN OPEN COUNTRYSIDE AND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THESE STRATEGIC GROWTH AREAS. LANGLEY HEATH IS NOT IN AN AREA IDENTIFIED AS SUITABLE FOR GROWTH REGARDING NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE COUNCILS SPATIAL STRATEGY IN THE RECENTLY ADOPTED MBC LOCAL PLAN REVIEW 2021-2038. THE SITE IS LOCATED BEYOND ANY SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY AND IS THEREFORE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. IT IS THEREFORE CONTRARY TO POLICY LPRSS1 OF THE MBCLPR. THE PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE RURAL CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE LOCAL AREA. THE ADOPTED MBCLPR 2021-2038 INCLUDES POLICIES TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE AND PREVENT INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HARM THE LANDSCAPE. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THEREFORE WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SPACIOUS RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND WOULD INDEED BE CONTRARY TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES LPRSP9. LPRSP15. LPRQD4. THESE POLICIES AMONGST OTHER THINGS REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO “RESPOND POSITIVELY TO, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, ENHANCE THE LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND AVOID SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE LANDSCAPE”. THE PROPOSED SITE DOES NONE OF THESE. IN ADDITION, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INTRODUCE UNCHARACTERISTIC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO LANGLEY HEATH AND WOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE NOT ONLY FROM GREEN LANE BUT ALSO FROM THE B2163. CLOSELY LINKED TO THIS IS THE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EFFECT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE UPON TWO GRADE 2 LISTED PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND OPPOSITE THE PROPOSE SITE. NAMELY, THE OLD FARMHOUSE (ADJACENT) AND THE OLD COTTAGE OPPOSITE). THERE IS ALSO AN ATTRACTIVE ROW OF SIX VICTORIAN COTTAGES, (GREEN LANE COTTAGES) BUILT IN 1879 DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE PROPOSED SITE. ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE ADVERSLY AFFECTED, PARTICULARLY THE OLD FARMHOUSE, AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ERODE THE LARGE GAP AND VERDANT NATURE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE REAR GARDENS OF PROPERTIES IN ORCHARD CLOSE AND THAT OF THE OLD FARMHOUSE. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SOUTH OF THE OLD FARMHOUSE OR MEADOW COTTAGE OPPOSITE, ONLY FIELDS ALMOST UP TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE A274. THESE FIELDS ARE USED FOR COMMERCIAL HORTICULTURE AND AS SUCH CONTINUES TO EMPHASIS THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. IN ADDITION, TO THE NORTH OF GREEN LANE COTTAGES, AND OPPOSITE THE PROPOSED SITE, IS ANOTHER FIELD ALSO USED FOR COMMERCIAL TREE CULTIVATION. THERE ARE ONLY THIRTEEN DWELLINGS IN GREEN LANE TO THE WEST AND SOUTH OF THE SITE, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM A MAP OF THE AREA, AND ARE TO SOME EXTENT QUITE SEPARATE TO THE REST OF THE VILLAGE. SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE GRANTED, THIS SEPERATION WOULD BE LOST AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL AND HARMFUL TO THE IDENTITY OF THIS UNIQUE COMMUNITY OF RESIDENTS AND MAY WELL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THEIR WELL BEING. ACCESS. A MAJOR CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR THESE RESIDENTS IS THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE SITE IN THIS PART OF GREEN LANE. IT IS A NARROW COUNTRY LANE WHERE A NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT APPLIES AND WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE ROAD IS A SINGLE TRACK LANE. SEE F.2.21 POLICY C4S(017) THE BRISHINGS, THEREFORE, APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXACERBATE ROAD SAFETY ISSUES OWING TO A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCESSING GREEN LANE. FURTHER TO THESE ISSUES, THERE ARE UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERNS REGARDING NOT ONLY THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO THE AIR AND NOISE POLLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. FACILITIES. LACK OF FACILITIES IN RELATION TO THE SITE ARE ALSO A CAUSE FOR CONCERN AND SHOULD PLAY A LARGE PART IN THE PROPOSAL BEING REJECTED. THERE ARE NO SCHOOLS AND NO SHOPS, THERE IS A DOCTORS SURGERY, ORCHARD MEDICAL PRACTISE APROX 0.5 MILES DISTANCE, HOWEVER WE HAVE LIVED IN LANGLEY HEATH IN EXCESS OF EIGHT YEARS AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO REGISTER THERE AS THEY ARE CONTINUALLY AT FULL CAPACITY. WE ATTEND SUTTON VALENCE GROUP PRACTICE SOME 1.8 MILES AWAY AND THIS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO HEALTH OR WELL BEING. THERE IS A BUS STOP CLOSE TO THE SITE, BUT A JOURNEY INTO MAIDSTONE TOWN CENTRE FROM THIS STOP INVOLVES USING TWO BUSES. THE SERVICE ALSO HAS LIMITED FREQUENCY APROX TWO BUSES PER HOUR. ON THIS BASIS, OWING TO THE POOR ACCESS TO THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR DAILY LIFE, FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD BE RELIANT ON PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE USE TO TRAVEL FOR DAY TO DAY NEEDS. THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE CONTRARY TO AIMS OF POLICY SS1 OF THE MBC LOCAL PLAN (2017),. CONTRARY TO MBC LOCAL PLAN REVIEW (MARCH 2024) POLICIES LPRSS1. LPRSP9. LPRSP15. LPRHOU8 AND THE NPPF (2023) AND THE SUSTAINABILITY AIMS OF THE NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK (2023) LPRHOU8. SPECIFICALLY SETS OUT CERTAIN CRITERION WHERE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SITE WILL BE GIVEN IF THE FOLLOWING IS MET. INLUDING THE FOLLOWING- LOCAL SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR SCHOOL, HEALTH AND SHOPPING FACILITIES ARE ACCESSABLE FROM THE SITE PREFERABLY ON FOOT, BY CYCLE OR ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE LANDSCAPE AND RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE SITE CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED FROM THE HIGHWAY BY ALL VEHICLES USING THE SITE ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED THROUGH APPROPRIATE SURVEY AND A SCHEME FOR ANY NECESSARY MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES CONFIRMED. THEREFORE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN LPRHOU8 LOSS OF HABITAT. LOSS OF HABITAT AND A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ECOLOGY OF THE SITE WOULD RESULT IF THIS PROPOSAL WENT AHEAD. LANGLEY HEATH IS VERY RURAL IN NATURE AND AS SUCH RESIDENTS HAVE THE BENEFIT OF WITNESSING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WILDLIFE BOTH ON THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA. THESE INCLUDE FOXES, HEDGEHOGS, RABBITS, PHEASANTS AND BIRDS OF ALL TYPES. IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE TO SEE BATS USING THE AREA FOR “COMMUTING AND FORAGING ROUTES” AT NIGHT. WE HAVE WITNESSED BADGER ACTIVITY IN THE AREA ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT KNOW IF ANY BADGER SETS ARE PRESENT OR IF ANY OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES HAVE THEIR HABITAT THERE. BUT, JUST THE LOSS OF THIS LAND FOR ORDINARY REGULAR WILDLIFE SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED HARMFUL, AS THE BIODIVERSITY WILL BE AFFECTED AND PLACE EXTRA PRESSURE ON OTHER POCKETS OF RURAL LAND. LINKED TO ABOVE POINT CONCERNING BATS, IS THAT THEIR COMMUTING AND FORAGING ROUTES ARE GREATLY AFFECTED BY LIGHT POLLUTION AND ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INCREASE BOTH LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION. BOTH OF THESE ISSUES COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE. THIS SECTION OF GREEN LANE IS A VERY LOW LIGHT POLLUTION AREA WITH ONLY ONE STREET LIGHT, AND ANY CHANGE TO THIS WOULD GREATLY AFFECT THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO AND OPPOSITE THE SITE. THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL BE VERY PROMINENT AND VISIBLE WITHIN THE VILLAGE AND IN OUR EXPERIENCE OF LIVING NEAR TO AND NEXT TO MANY OF THE GYPSY/TRAVELLING COMMUNITY, IS THAT THEY VALUE THEIR PRIVICY AND ARE OFTEN UNWILLING TO INTEGRATE WITH THE SETTLED COMMUNITY. IT WILL BE UNLIKELY THAT THE GYPSY/TRAVELLER COMMUNITY WILL WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH A VISIBLE POSITION AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTS. OWING TO THIS, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT RATHER THAN RESULTING IN A COHESIVE ENVIRONMENT, THIS SITE MAY CAUSE DIVISION IN THE COMMUNITY ON BOTH SIDES, THEREBY IMPACTING EVERYONES HEALTH AND WELL BEING. PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE BY DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE. WHILE WE APPRECIATE EACH APPLICATION/PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERIT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY/UNSUITABILITY OF THE SITE. IT IS NOTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE BRISHINGS. MBC PLANNING REFs: 78/1659--- 90/0321---90/0322---14/0545---15/501183---16/505995. ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED FOR VARYING REASONS, BUT MOST OF WHICH ALIGN WITH THE OBJECTIONS LISTED ABOVE. WHY THEN IS THIS SITE EVEN BEING CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT? IN CONCLUSION, IF A SITE IS DETERMINED UNSUITABLE BY A COUNCIL FOR RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, IT IS CONTRADICTORY, TO SAY THE LEAST, THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL IN ANY SUBSIQUENT PROPOSAL MADE BY THAT VERY SAME COUNCIL. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO THE FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE!