Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Nothing chosen

I write on behalf of my clients, Mr and Mrs James Theobald XXXX. Their property is virtually adjacent to the substantial proposed site allocation reference C4S [019] The Meadow. My clients fully appreciate the need for this Development Plan Document and the obligation that rests on the Borough Council to accommodate the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people. They do however believe that this specific allocation is inappropriate and indeed fails to follow the Borough Council’s own guidance. Hence they object strongly to this particular aspect of the DPD both in terms of its location and the scale of the site in relation to the surrounding community. Location The site in question lies outside of the built up confines of any settlement that appears in the Borough Council’s Settlement Hierarchy. Hence the site must be considered as lying in open countryside with the approved development plan policies applying appropriately. The area around Chartway Street is characterised by a not insubstantial number of existing dwellings sporadically clustered together. None the less the site is outside any settlement recognised in the Development Plan. Indeed the nearest facilities are to be found in Kingswood, where there is a convenience store and a primary school, or Sutton Valence where there is a Doctors’ Surgery albeit one that at present is not taking new patients. Both Kingswood and Sutton Valance are ten minutes away from the proposed allocated site by motor vehicle and, thus, significantly longer away by foot or cycle. There is no public transport. It is also important to note that whilst the site itself is not in an identified area of countryside protection it is close to, and within the setting of, an area of Local Landscape Importance being on the edge of the scarp slope. In addition I should draw to your attention that the site is crossed by a National Gas Pipe Line. Policy considerations Whilst it is appreciated that this draft DPD specifically relates to Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people with policies drafted appropriately it is still important to consider this proposal in light of broader National and Local adopted planning guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework is the Government’s published position on planning matters. The latest update was issued in December 2024. Of particular significance to this proposal is the guidance in paragraphs 83 and 84 which, in dealing with development in rural areas, seeks to concentrate the limited development opportunities that there are to allowing existing settlements to grow modestly. Outside existing settlements [in open countryside] very specific exceptions are set out which do not include caravan sites. Hence the normal policy presumption on the proposed site is that development would normally be refused. It is also relevant to this case to note paragraph 135 which deals with the considerations that Local Planning Authorities should give to the impact of new proposals not least on existing residents. Especially the guidance states that new proposals should be “sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..”. In addition sub paragraph f says that new development should “create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well being with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users..” The broad national guidance is carried through into the Maidstone Local Plan Review not least in policy LPRSS1 which, as a strategic imperative states that protection is to be given to the rural character of the Borough and that development will generally be confined to the settlements identified in the plan [which, as previously stated, the proposed site lies outside]. Of particular relevance to the proposal in question is policy LPRHOU8, which deals with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation. This states that permission would be granted for such uses if, inter alia, the following criteria are met: b] local services, in particular school, health and shopping facilities are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or by public transport c] the development would not result in significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area. I suggest that the proposed site fails to meet either of the above criteria. In terms of consistency it is important to note previous decisions made by the Borough Council on proposals for gypsy sites in the countryside. Just one example is 2024/0962 which proposed five caravans on land south of Pluckley Station and which was refused as “an intrusive and incongruous form of development that would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the rural locality”. It is worth noting that this site is in a far less conspicuous location than this proposed site at Chartway Street. Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people DPD I turn now to the draft Development Plan Document which is the subject of the current consultation. As previously stated my clients understand the need for this DPD and broadly accept its thrust. Policy TR1 sets out the spatial strategy to be applied to allocated sites and new proposals. This again relies greatly on the settlement hierarchy but with regards to sites in the countryside states that sites will be provided in accord with the following criteria: 1. Through appropriate intensification, reorganisation or expansion of existing authorised sites 2. Through the redevelopment of previously developed land 3. As a rural exception site. With regard to the last point policy TR6 requires such a proposal to [amongst other points]: 1. be justified by a local accommodation needs survey, 2. be of a scale which is in proportion to and does not dominate the nearest settlement community 3. be suitably located in terms of access to local facilities by foot, cycle or public transport I suggest that this particular site fails to satisfy any of the above criteria and therefore its allocation would be in fundamental conflict with the policies in the DPD which guide site allocation and permissions. Proposed Allocation C4S [019] The Meadow is included in the Draft Plan as a result of a Call for Sites submission rather than having been identified by the Borough Council through its own survey and investigative work. No site capacity is suggested but it is of substantial size. In relation to the scattered dwellings in the vicinity it will be overwhelming and significantly out of scale with its surroundings.. Chartway Street is currently a well integrated community, and imposing a significant new community on to the area will fail to meet the NPPF guidance of ensuring that new proposals will provide a high standard of amenity – in its full sense, and wellbeing - for existing and proposed residents. Integration of many new residents on the proposed site with existing residents just will not happen. The resulting situation will be to the detriment of all now and in the future. To include a specific proposed allocation of this nature in the DPD will risk undermining the confidence that one may have in an otherwise sound and well meaning document. Conclusion Generally the draft DPD provides a reasoned and soundly based approach to accommodating the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people in Maidstone. However as is clearly demonstrated above, the proposed specific allocation of The Meadows site is clearly not in accord with National guidance, the Council’s own Development Plan Review and indeed the strategic policies in the DPD itself. Should this proposal remain in the DPD it will be to the detriment of local residents, the character of the countryside, potential occupants and the integrity of the overall DPD document. I therefore ask that site C4S [019], The Meadows, be removed from the DPD before it progresses to the next stage.