Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Ms Esther Cook search
New searchEstablished sites should be maintained and supported, as long as they are being used appropriately, safely and according to the agreements with the council that have previously been made.
This section does not give enough info to comment, really. No concrete information, just a lot of speculation and possibilities. It is interesting that even within this document, there is evidence presented of enforcement action being undertaken on 2 sites, due to activity on established sites within the borough.
This is a fairly pointless bit of policy writing; no specific TOR or aims defined. Even the thumbnail maps are not helpful, unfortunately, so I can only comment on the proposed site near us in Bearsted (C4S (008)). I am concerned about the volume and type of additional traffic on Water Lane and the safety for potential site residents and existing village residents, as well as utilities and the environmental impact and flood risk on and because of the development.
I do not see why a new public site should be considered separately from this policy. I appreciate the funding is different, but interests and concerns from residents in the borough will likely be the same.
Greater consideration should be given to the size of sites and local amenities, especially schools and shops.
The criteria set out in this section seem more stringent than those applied in identifying proposed sites earlier in the document. C4S(008), for instance, would have poor access from the road, community facilities are already oversubscribed and the site is a flood risk.
No answer given
At this stage, several sites on the edge of conurbations are being proposed, with none of the required assessments (for flood risk, impact on waterways, pollution, safety etc) having been done. So all discussion could be for naught. C4S(008) in Bearsted, for instance raises many concerns, obvious to residents but seemingly not clear to MBC. Water Lane is a narrow, muddy, flood-prone country lane, with no footpath or lighting. The proposed site is only accessible down a very shoddy private road. No indication has been given in these opaque documents as to the number of large, heavy vehicles that could be using this access, or how many people will be living on site, so the environmental impact is impossible to define. No consideration appears to have been given as to how services (water/sewerage/power) will be supplied, or the impact the provision of these would have on the village, in the construction phase or the long term. Community facilities are already over-subscribed, which was ignored by MBC in the allowing of the Roundwell development, so any further additional housing in the village will have a negative impact.
Kent, and Maidstone in particular, already provide more than their proportional percentage of accommodation, as documented above. Maidstone residents, all those with or without protected characteristics, often have to compromise where they live and their proximity to family for many different reasons. Disproportionate weight should not be given to this issue within this strategic plan.
