Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Mrs Kim Chaplin search
New searchThe local area is already choking due to over development. Infrastructure and roads are not fit for purpose. Agricultural land is being used for development or for solar farms, not for food production. House building provides immediate employment but does not make provision for long term employment needs.
Legal rights for gypsy, traveller and showpeople seem to be prioritised over the rest of the working population.
A site in Langley was permitted after Inspectorate granted it on the grounds that this was for one unwell woman and child only. This pitch was immediately put out for rent and 2 further pitches have popped up. How would the sites be safeguarded?
Langley site of 20 pitches is entirely unsuitable. This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
The Brishings This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
£4 milliion? From where will this money be found?
20 pitches within the small rural village of Langley would not be beneficial to either the current residents or for the gypsy, traveller and showpeople community as there are not the local amenities needed. This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
The roads and pavements are not maintained; drains are not cleared. How are these lovely designs and layouts going to be kept looking pristine? The site at the Brishings is simply not large enough to accommodate these proposals.
